Argument109=美丽G程小组=小组第4次作业by 曦范

曦范UID: 2724845

Argument 109
  Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author conclude that the average housing price will not affected by the laws of limiting new construction, and this kind limiting law would not have any negative affections toward the housing price in Maple city. To support this conclusion, the author points out Chestnut City never made that kind of law but suffer an increase in average housing price. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but from the logical perspective, it suffers from several logic flaws.
  Obviously, from a fundamental perspective, the author draws the conclusion that there is no connection between the limiting law and the housing price too hastily.  The analogy  claim that these two cities had suffered a similar increase in average housing price, but Pine City has made limiting laws while Chestnut City did not, so laws and price have no connection, which is unwarranted. However, it is entirely possible that the economic backgrounds, currency conditions or even populations in these two cities are different. It is also possible that the increase of housing price in Pine City was just because the limiting laws, and maybe if we set laws limiting new consrtuction to Chestnut City, the housing price will have a sharp rise. What's more, Pine City may confront a currency devaluation which caused the increasing of housing price. In short, we do not have enough evidence to conclude that just because Chestnut never establish any limiting laws, but experienced increase, so there is no relation between the two.
   Even assuming that housing price in Pine and Chestnut City have no relationship with the laws limiting new construction, it is just an unique instance, not the general run of things, thus we have no evidence to prove that these laws will have no effects on average housing price in Maple City. The author falsely depends on the assumption that housing market and currency conditions in these cities are similar. This comparison is weak. We should analysed the problem base on the facts of the development and changing condition in these cities. If Maple City have a large population, and a rapidly developed city which depends on a big package size, the laws that limit new building construction will surely effect on average housing price, and may cause social problems. To sum up, without accounting for such possible differences, the author cannot prove that Maple City will reap a similar benefit from the proposed method.
  To conclude, this author fails to substantiate his claim that Maple City would not have affections on housing price after the introduction of the laws that limit new building construction because the evidence citied in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to the economic and social backgrounds of those cities, or more specific details of the house market, the argument will be more through and logically acceptable.

猫斯基UID: 2607814

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author conclude（concludes) that the average housing price will not(be) affected by the laws of limiting new construction, and this kind limiting law would not have any negative affections toward the housing price in Maple city. To support this conclusion, the author points out Chestnut City never made that kind of law but suffer (suffered)an increase in average housing price. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but from the logical perspective, it suffers from several logic flaws.
  Obviously, from a fundamental perspective, the author draws the conclusion that there is no connection between the limiting law and the housing price too hastily.  The analogy  claim(claims) that these two cities had suffered a similar increase in average housing price, but Pine City has made limiting laws while Chestnut City did not, so laws and price have no connection(换成there is no connection between laws and price), which is unwarranted. However, it is entirely possible that the economic backgrounds, currency conditions or even populations in these two cities are different. It is also possible that the increase of housing price in Pine City was just because the limiting laws, and maybe if we set laws limiting new consrtuction to Chestnut City, the housing price will have a sharp rise. What's more, Pine City may confront a currency devaluation which caused the increasing of housing price. In short, we do not have enough evidence to conclude that just because Chestnut never establish any limiting laws, but experienced increase, so there is no relation between the two.（应该点明两市不具有可比性作为攻击重点）
   Even assuming that housing price in Pine and Chestnut City have （has)no relationship with the laws limiting new construction, it is just an unique instance, not the general run of things, thus we have no evidence to prove that these laws will have no effects on average housing price in Maple City. The author falsely depends on the assumption that housing market and currency conditions in these cities are similar. This comparison is weak. We should analysed the problem base(basing) on the facts of the development and changing condition(conditions) in these cities. If Maple City have(has) a large population, and a rapidly developed city which depends on a big package size, the laws that limit new building construction will surely effect on average housing price, and may cause social problems. To sum up, without accounting for such possible differences, the author cannot prove that Maple City will reap a similar benefit from the proposed method.
  To conclude, this author fails to substantiate his claim that Maple City would not have affections on housing price after the introduction of the laws that limit new building construction because the evidence citied in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to the economic and social backgrounds of those cities, or more specific details of the house market, the argument will be more through and logically acceptable.

猫斯基UID: 2607814

这篇文章攻击的重点就是文章把不具可比性的东东糅杂在了一起，所以只要点名C和P不具可比性，以及C，P，M只见不具可比性，就可了。。总体来说，姐姐的文章还是不错了。。一些小小的语法瑕疵。。整体来说论证还是很完整的，然后就是点明具体问题方面。比如说第一段的论述，应该是把二者不具可比性开篇点明的就更清楚了