Argument analysis...

[Gre_Intl]

"The cities of East Sacunda and West Sacunda are in an earthquake-prone area. Since 1985 both cities have had stringent building codes requiring all new buildings to have specific features designed to prevent damage in an earthquake. Buildings built before 1985 are exempt from the codes, but many building owners have modified their buildings to make them conform to the 1985 codes. Last year a major earthquake hit the area, and many people lost their homes. The number of people who were left homeless was much higher in East Sacunda than in West Sacunda, however, so we can conclude that building owners in East Sacunda were less likely to modify their buildings so as to bring them up to the 1985 code standards."

My response:

The author claims that East Sacunda (ES) had more buildings collapsed than West Sacunda (WS) in the latest earthquake because their owners did not modify the buildings so that they conform to the new standards. However, the author’s argument relies on a series of unproven assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

Firstly, author’s claim that “owners in ES were less likely to modify their buildings” is unfair as no certain evidence is provided to support this claim. The explanation for more building collapses in ES might be that epicenter of the earthquake was closer to the ES than WS. Without more in depth examination of this issue the author’s conclusion is bias.

Furthermore, the author does not provide us with the information of how many buildings have been built after 1985 in each of two cities. For example, if WS experienced a huge expansion after 1985 unlike ES, that would bring us to the described situation.

Thirdly, there is no evidence that it is possible to incorporate the new code completely when it comes to modification of old buildings and if the changes that new code suggests are effective at all. If there was no major earthquakes between 1985 and the last year it is impossible to assume that the new code’s changes are effective.

Finally, even if the code was fully effective and incorporated in every new and old building, the author does not give any info on quality control. Owners might have overseen some of the most important provisions because it was too expensive to comply with them.

In sum, the argument is a dubious one that relies on a series of unproven assumptions. In order to make it stronger author should provide more data on: (1) earthquake intensity and epicenter location; (2) expansion in building in each of the two cities; (3) the code provisions effectiveness and (4) the quality control. If the author would provide evidence on all of those aspects his argument would be much more persuasive.

[Gre_Intl]

Anyone???