The author's line of reasoning of the argument that the city will be revitalized

by going through with a comprehensive urban renewal program, that the city
of Transopolis adopted ten years ago; in which the city adapted for the
industrial use of large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway,
on the declining residential area on the opposite side of the city is flawed
since the author has made several unsubstantiated assumptions and
provided incomplete information.
First of all, the author assumed that many businesses will be willing to
construct factories on the opposite side of the city, when the majority of the
industries lies far away from there. The author failed to see that the
businesses might not be willing to set up factories in the proposed location as
they would bear an extra transportation cost, for transportation of raw
materials to the new location. Further it might be even possible that the old
location was successful because of its proximity to the freeway making
transportation easier and cheaper.
Moreover, the author assumed that the people still living in the declining
residential areas would be willing to relocate. According to the author,
alternative housing for those displaced will be readily available but does not
mention the exact time. It may be possible that housing is available but due
to any personal reasons, residents of these areas do not want to move.
Furthermore, the author assumes that the criminal activities decreased in the
industrial location near the freeway due to industrialization. It might be
possible that criminal activities decreased due to imprisonment of criminals
by the local police departments. The declining residential areas consist of
many not habituated houses and apartments which might be the hub of
flourishing criminal activities. It may be possible that on industrialization of
the area, criminal activities might increase and obstruct the daily routines of
these industries.
To sum up, the argument in its present state is not persuasive because of
weak evidences and unreliable assumptions made by the author. The author
needs to provide more information and clarify the above stated assumptions
to strengthen his/her claim.