Question

Everyone in Center City wants to see the downtown waterfront area looking better and thriving
financially. The Center City Waterfront Development Project will bring huge benefits
to our community, including the creation of a new public park, walking and bike paths, a dog
park, and a new outdoor performance area. In addition, there are plans to create a new
restaurant and shopping area on the north end of the waterfront.
Critics of the project say that it is unwanted by local residents and that it is too expensive.
However, a recent poll shows that 85 percent of Center City residents support the creation of
a park in the area. In addition, a report by the city planning office shows that all the proposed
building sites would be developed and sold within two years. Tax revenue from these new
sites would pay for the cost of developing the parks, the walking and biking paths, and the
outdoor performance area. The project is a win for all citizens of Center City. In November,
you can help make it happen. Vote yes to provide funding for the Center City Waterfront
Development Project!
1. What is the author’s claim and purpose?
2. What reasons and evidence does the author use to support the claim?
3. What counterargument does the author include?
4. Does the author disprove the counterargument? How?

Answer 1

1) Claim and purpose
- Claim: Voters should vote yes in November to provide funding for the Center City Waterfront Development Project.
- Purpose: To persuade Center City residents to support the project by arguing it will improve the waterfront and be financially viable.

2) Reasons and evidence used to support the claim
- Promised community benefits: a new public park, walking and bike paths, a dog park, an outdoor performance area, and a restaurant/shopping area.
- Public-support evidence: a poll showing 85% of Center City residents support creation of a park in the area.
- Financial viability evidence: a city planning office report asserting that the proposed building sites would be developed and sold within two years, and projected tax revenue from those sales would cover the costs of developing the park and related amenities.
- Conclusion framed as a general “win for all citizens.”

3) Counterargument the author includes
- Critics say the project is unwanted by local residents and that it is too expensive.

4) Does the author disprove the counterargument? How?
- Partially but not fully. The author rebuts the “unwanted” charge with the poll (85% support for a park) and rebuts the “too expensive” charge by citing the planning-office projection that sales and resulting tax revenues will pay development costs.
- Weaknesses in the rebuttal: the poll addresses support for a park specifically (not necessarily the full project or its cost), and no polling methodology or scope is given. The financial rebuttal cites a projection but gives no numbers, assumptions, contingency plans, timeline for covering upfront costs, or evidence that sales and revenues will materialize as predicted. Thus the author offers some direct responses but does not fully disprove the critics’ concerns.