argument109 追状态 最后6天！。。by pluka

plukaUID: 2721764

TOPIC: ARGUMENT109 - The 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."
WORDS: 427          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-2-25 11:30:14
到了这份上，却突然觉得状态变差，噩耗。追状态中。
Basing his deductions on incomplete comparisons between Pine City(PC) and Chestnut City(CC), and hastily generalize to Maple City(MC), the author concludes that the strict limit on new building construction will not affect the everage（average拼写！） housing prices in MC. This contention suffers from several flaws as discussed below.

Ignoring disparities between PC and CC, the author unfairly deducts（deduce才对= =！） that the limit in buiding（building误漏L！） construction contributes little to the housing prices. However, he fails to provide concrete information on the situations in areas such as economy, geography, environment and people's attitude and demand for housing, which, apart from the construction regulations, may all influence greatly the prices. Maybe the economic improvement in PC fueled people's desire for houses and led to an upswing on housing prices.  Perhaps in CC, where possibly suffered from higher housing pressures, the value of property surged. Given those various factors, Hardly can the author assert the law on building constructions as the primary reason, or even a contributing one. 

Similarly, unless the author can clearify（clarify没有E！） the major determinant（determinator！略去major） of housing prices in MC, he cannot presumptuously ensure the influence of the laws in MC. He renders not, however, specifics of MC. We are not informed of the population and number of potential houses buyers, the average income and expending habits of citizens, the environment or living conditions in the city, or the expectation on the economic development in the future: any of which can exert significant influence on the housing prices in MC. Without those key information and the like, any conclusion falls short of reliability.

Further, the author presents nothing on the contents of the laws carried out in the three cities respectively. As the governmental emphases and local situations differ, highly possibiliy（possibilityB后的I！）, regulations adopted by the cities varied conspicuously and thus functioned differently. He does not tell the purpose of the law in MC. It is possible that MC government adopetd（adopted拼写！） such regulations exactly to control or affect the housing prices. In this case, it would be aburd（absurd拼写！） and naive to deny beforehand its impacts. Before he can convincingly prove that the coming regulation has neither intentions nor potential influence on the property market of MC, his words lacks credibility.

In sum, the author commits so seriously fallacious the deduction and generalization that his conclusion has been weakened drastically. To amend or bolster the contention, he may as well delves deeper to find out the true reasons for the rising housing prices in PC and CC, gain more specific information in MC and establishes persuasive relationship between the law and property prices.