Argument109=美丽G程小组=小组第4次作业by petric

petricUID: 2719885

109The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Maple City newspaper.
"Twenty years ago Pine City established strict laws designed to limit the number of new buildings that could be constructed in the city. Since that time the average housing prices in Pine City have increased considerably. Chestnut City, which is about the same size as Pine City, has over the past twenty years experienced an increase in average housing prices similar to Pine City, but Chestnut City never established any laws that limit new building construction. So it is clear that laws limiting new construction have no effect on average housing prices. So if Maple City were to establish strict laws that limit new building construction, these laws will have no effect on average housing prices."


感觉这道题很怪，原因有二：关于P处如果攻击还有其他原因，那么就是说法令也许没有作用，好像支持了作者的观点；还有2处类比错误，刚分析过PC用它因法，CM再用它因就重复了）需要经济方面和房屋的论证

文章用模板，拼出来的。哎，整不明白逻辑:mad:

petricUID: 2719885

引用staralways版主的提纲:（
分析：
① “all things are equal，以过去证据推断现在或将来”。题目一开始就讲明，Pine City所颁布的法令是在20年以前，而在结论中，作者所论述的是关于现在或将要在Maple City颁布的法令，20年前的情形和现在，法令的内容肯定会有所不同，而由此导致的结果或影响也会因为其他种种条件的变化、其他的可能性而显得不同。
② “Fails to establish the causal relationship，因果错误”。这里具体所指的就是两座城市颁布的法令与各自房屋均价的上涨之间的关系。对于Pine City，虽然颁布了法令，但是不一定就是因为该法令使得房屋均价上涨，譬如该城市是一座山城，可供建造房屋的土地很少、或者开发新建设用地的成本很高，导致房屋的价格很高，而与是否限制高层住宅的建造并没有什么关系。而对于Chestnut City，并不一定就因为没有法令的缘故（疑问：这是什么逻辑？能算因果？是不是由未知推结论啊？），可能该城市人口众多、经济水平很高、人均收入高因而购买力强，从而导致对房屋的过量需求而产生房价的提高。总而言之，法令的存在与否，并不能肯定地作为房价上升的必要条件。因此这里可以攻击作者的第一个结论。
③ “False analogy，类比错误”。同样是攻击法令与房价是否有关（疑问：这样就写不成递进式了啊）。由于②中提到的两个城市的情况有可能不同，那么可能法令对于一个城市有效、而对于另外一个无效，或者反之亦然。注意这里不要和②搞混；②是针对两个城市各自的情况来攻击的，而在这里是根据两座城市的情况之间的关系来攻击的。
④ 第四点是针对作者的第二个结论的，也可以称之为“False analogy，类比错误”。因为即使能够证明法令对于房价的控制是无效的，由于Maple City是题目中出现的第三座城市，颁布的法令的效果也不得而知，也就并不一定会是无效的。

逻辑错误是这样的，但是怎样一段一段的写？类比的2个错误写到一起？但是两个类比得到2个结论。因果的错误放一段写？

petricUID: 2719885

正文：
Grounding on the comparison about effect of estate laws towards housing price between Pine City (P) and Chestnut City(C) ,the author accordingly concludes that law restrictions have no effect on average housing prices, and further suggests that Maple City(M) will follow this rule .However, this argument is logically flawed in the following four main aspects.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the increase of housing prices in P was attributable to the application of laws that limited new building construction. Yet, common sense tells us that, housing price is affected by a combination of supply and demand , decided by a series of factors; not changed by merely one. Perhaps, it is speculations of property investors that cause the blooming price, although the demand was far below the supply; or perhaps other government policies , whose aims were to stimulate purchase capability of the society was account for price changes, such as lowing down mortgage rate and lifting rent of accommodations. If such is the case, law restrictions had only an indirect impact on prices at P.

Secondly ,in spite of C experienced an similar average housing prices without any law limits, the author cannot persuade me into believe that they are ineffective to house prices at C, in relying on the lack of information about what would house price be like if C took strict laws to limit new building constriction just like P's . It is entirely possible that C would prompt its housing price much faster and higher by many times if such laws established. In sum, without considering and eliminating other factors which affect demand and supply, otherwise, I cannot accept the author's implicit claim that the existence of such laws decides the housing prices.

Furthermore, the argument rests on the assumption that P is analogous to C in all respects, just based on the same size. This assumption is weak, since the author assumes without justifying background conditions, such as economic developments, demographic and geographic factors. For example, If C is a denser geographic area or a mountainous city whose utilized land for new construction was in deficiency, the population increase would overwhelm the demand for new housing obviously, whereas in P ,maybe a city with fewer population and less developed economic, only through restrictions on constructions, the demand for housing happened to rocket dramatically. Thus it is entirely possible that laws are effective for the kind of cities like P ,but not for other types of cities like C.

Even assuming that laws limiting new constructions had no effect on average housing prices, it is entirely possible that this experience would not apply specifically to M upon which the argument relies-due to geological, economic, population differences among M, P and C, the sort of factors mentioned above which might lead to increase of price without laws, but would not come into play in M . Besides, laws that were applied twenty years before might not run in the foreseeable future, due to policy changes. If this is the case, then the conclusion would lack any merit whatsoever.


In sum, the argument relies on certain problematic assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincing , cite some evidence that is more persuasive and take every possible consideration into account.

hugeseaUID: 190158

引用staralways版主的提纲:（
分析：
① “all things are equal，以过去证据推断现在或将来”。题目一开始就讲明，Pine City所颁布的法令是在20年以前，而在结论中，作者所论述的是关于现在或将要在Maple City颁布 ...
petric 发表于 2009-12-3 02:10

我怎么越看这个提纲有问题？

题目给的第一个结论是说房子的价格与限制法令无关，提纲的第二部分论述的是啥？
根本就不是针对这一点攻击的。