75.      
　　 In this editorial the author argues that improvements to existing city services as well as new services should be paid for by developers rather than by taxpayers¹. In support of this opinion the author points out that developers can make large profits from building projects and that these projects increase the demand for city services and raise the city's expenses, I disagree with the author's opinion for two reasons.

      First, the fact that developers stand to make profits from their projects is not a good reason to require them to pay more than their fair share of the costs of services. In fact, to require them to do this in order to win approval of their projects is tantamount to robbery. City officials would find it difficult to justify² a policy that endorsed³ this practice. Moreover, the adoption⁴ of such a practice would discourage the development of new buildings in the city.

      Second, the increase in demand for city services as well as the increase in the city's expenses will be most likely offset⁵ by the tax revenues these projects generate. Consequently, unless the author can demonstrate that the city will incur⁶ expenses that are not covered by the increased revenues from these projects, the author's concern about these issues is unfounded.

      In conclusion. I find the author's reasoning on this issue unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to show that the city would be harmed financially by approving new building projects.

76.      
　　 This newspaper editorial concludes that our city should build a plant for burning trash in order to avoid the serious health threats associated with many landfills. The author adds that an incinerator could offer economic benefits as well, since incinerators can be adapted to generate small amounts of electricity for other uses, and since ash residue⁷ from some kinds of trash can be used as a soil conditioner. Even if these claims are true, the author's argument is unconvincing in three important respects.

      To begin with, the author fails to consider health threats posed by incinerating trash. It is possible, for example, that respiratory problems resulting from the air pollution caused by burning trash might be so extensive that they would outweigh⁸ the health risks associated with landfills. If so, the author's conclusion that switching to incineration would be more salutary for public health would be seriously undermined.

      Secondly⁹, the author assumes that discontinuing landfill operations would abate¹⁰ the heath threats they now pose. However, this is not necessarily the case. It is possible that irreversible environmental damage to subterranean¹¹ water supplies, for example, has already occurred. In this event, changing from landfills to incinerators might not avoid or abate serious public health problems.

      Thirdly, the author's implicit¹² claim that incinerators are economically advantageous¹³ to landfills is poorly supported. Only two small economic benefits of incineration are mentioned, while the costs associated with either burning trash or switching refuse disposal systems are ignored. In all likelihood, such costs would be significant, and may very well outweigh the economic benefits.

      In conclusion, the author's argument provides inadequate¹⁴ justification¹⁵ for switching from one disposal system to the other. As it stands, the argument takes into account only a limited number of benefits from the change, while addressing none of its costs. To better evaluate the argument, we must first examine all the health risks posed by each refuse disposal system and conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis of each system, taking account of the cost of the new system, the cost of the changeover itself, and the expected costs to the community of health problems resulting from each system.