GMAT Essay Topic 466 - The following appeared as part of an article in a popular arts and leisure magazine. "The safety codes governing the construction of public buildings are becoming far too strict. The surest way for architects and builders to prove that they have met the minimum requirements established by these codes is to construct buildings by using the same materials and methods that are currently allowed. But doing so means that there will be very little significant technological innovation within the industry, and hence little evolution of architectural styles and design ? merely because of the strictness of these safety codes." Discuss how well reasoned . . . Etc.
In this argument, the arguer claims that the safety codes administered the construction of public building are stricter and stricter
In this argument, the arguer claims that the safety codes administered the construction of public building are stricter and stricter and it will not help the development of the building industry. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that architects and builder are using the same materials and methods to construct the buildings to meet the minimum requirements established by these codes. The evidence presented throughout the argument, however, is insufficient and therefore does lend strong support to the conclusion.
In the first place, the strictness of the safety codes is related to the public building, yet the arguer believe that it will passively affect the whole building industry. Of course, the increasingly strict codes perhaps have influence on the construction of public buildings, but there is not enough concrete information to convince us that they will keep the industry from technologically innovating. It is equally possible, for instance, that only the construction of public buildings develops slowly and the whole building industry does quickly. If so, there are less passive effects than what the arguer claims in this argument.
In the second place, even though the public buildings can be representative of the whole building industry, the arguer fails to establish a casual relationship between the strictness of the codes and little evolution of architectural styles and design. The arguer ignores other possibilities such as that the whole industry are stimulated by the increasing demand to have a lot of innovation. In other words, there are some other factors, which may lead to the opposite result.
In conclusion, the arguer fails to demonstrate that the strictness will not cause innovation of the building industry. To solidify this argument, the arguer would have to provide more evidence that the safety codes have many passive effects. In addition, the arguer should present more information about these codes and the building industry.