I found the above argument filled with weak points.

They were worried about the

shopping centers and houses, what is wrong with it? What may happen to the Scott
woods if it is development was controlled and monitored? The discussion could be better
if it was supported with rational reasons for that worry like talking about pollution, wiled
life or economical situations. I think the park land will be better if there are some
facilities to encourage tourism there. Furthermore, the development may take different
steps through making Scott Woods a national natural reserve or preparing it to be a
station concerning of the ecosystem or biology. These steps could benefit the local
community through employing some of its members or pushing the economical wheel
forward with keeping it as a park land also.
The argument states that the school is the best use of that land, what about the steps I
mentioned above? The school could be founded anywhere else; I think that there are
many schools in Morganton. In addition, who said that there will be no shopping centers
at the school? There will be different facilities at the school like canteen, restaurants,
library, labs ...and may be a shopping center. On the other hand the sport field could be
founded without the school.
Moreover, what is the percentage of that large majority and how they found it, it should
be provided and formally to give the reader an aspect about the situation and to
strengthen the argument.