In this argument, the author makes the assertion that there is no need to restrict the size of such sites in their state or to place any restrictions on the number of homes built near the sites for the reason that they hold that the current system of garbage sites does not pose a significant health hazard. However, carefully scrutiny of the argument reveals various statistical and other logical problems, which render it unconvincing.
One problem with the argument involves the cited statistics about the study. It is unreasonable to draw any conclusion about the condition of all the people near the trash sites just on the basic of the selected five sites and 300 people. For instance, perhaps the selected people are particularly immune to the pollution.
Another problem is that the argument treats the lack of proof that the current garbage system will pose some extant of health hazard as constituting the sufficient proof that it will not pose any significant health hazard. We can not be convinced of the security of the current garbage system just because it has not been tested to be secure.
Finally, certain restriction on the sizes of the garbage sites are still be necessary in the future even if there have not been revealed any significant health hazard. The current condition does not necessary indicate that the state in the future will not change. Maybe the situation may change in the future for some other reasons. In that way, the restrictions are required though they seem not be that much useful now.
In sum, the study conducted by the council is too vague and meaningless to justify the council’s position, we need more concrete evidence to show that the garbage system does cause no serious disease, and no any further preventive measures are indeed necessary to be taken to prevent any possible hazardous result