argument109

斑马慢蓝黑乱UID: 2788017

109.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."


In the argument, the editor of the Maple City newspaper assumes that the Maple city’s average house prices won’t be affected if the government establishes laws to limit new building construction. To sustain his opinion, the editor points out the example of Chestnut City, that which has not established the laws to limit the buildings construction experienced an increase in average housing prices similar to Pine City, in which the laws has conducted for 20 years. However, this argument is unconvincing as it is based on incomplete reasons and lack of enough evidence to support its conclusion


Firstly, with the development of the society, especially its economy, the price on everything is growing rapidly, including that on houses, so it’s not surprising both cities experience the same increase. Imagine that a person just earned 100 dollar a month 20 years ago, the price on house must correspond with his income level, or the real estate developer couldn’t sell even one house. Then in modern times, person can earn more money, similarly, the developer won’t get any profit if they don’t increase the payment. But those with small construction are always well paid. This explains why both cities experience the same increase, not because there’s no thing to do with the limits of building construction, just for the element of growing economy plays a more important role than that of construction 20 years ago, and this is the new century, the status of the developing economy is no more as influencing as before. So the limits would make effects on prices.


Secondly, the same increase of different policy-conducted cities may results from the distinctions of other features of the houses. For example, the advantage in geography would be a main cause for that. The building in the centre of city should be higher in order to save the basic cost while that in suburbs are lower, but the whole cost for both sides are nearly the same. I mean, the limits for building construction is not important, which significance is just counteracted by other factors.


Thirdly, draw a conclusion simply from two countries is not creditable. One example is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. Maybe the house price affected by different factors in different cities such as the condition of the traffic, or another city would have affected greatly by the limits of building constructions.



To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands, the arguer should provide clearer evidence to support his ideas that government’s limits won’t affect the price on house.

clover213UID: 2807466

In the argument, the editor of the Maple City newspaper assumes that the Maple city’s average house prices won’t be affected if the government establishes laws to limit new building construction. To sustain his opinion, the editor points out the example of Chestnut City, that which has not established the laws to limit the buildings construction experienced an increase in average housing prices similar to Pine City, in which the laws has conducted for 20 years. However, this argument is unconvincing as it is based on incomplete reasons and lack of enough evidence to support its conclusion


Firstly, with the development of the society, especially its economy, the price on everything is growing rapidly, including that on houses, so it’s not surprising both cities experience the same increase. Imagine that a person just earned 100 dollar a month 20 years ago, the price on house must correspond with his income level, or the real estate developer couldn’t sell even one house(如果price didn’t correspond with income level 有两种可能：一是太高 二是太低。而or后面直接就假设成了correspond的反面是售价太低，感觉稍有欠缺。). Then in modern times, person can earn more money, similarly, the developer won’t get any profit if they don’t increase the payment. But those with small construction are always well paid（为什么有small construction这个不太懂。。）. This explains why both cities experience the same increase, not because there’s no thing to do with the limits of building construction, just for the element of growing economy plays a more important role than that of construction 20 years ago, and this is the new century, the status of the developing economy is no more as influencing as before. So the limits would make effects on prices.

Secondly, the same increase of different policy-conducted（好） cities may results from the distinctions of other features of the houses. For example, the advantage in geography would be a main cause for that. The building in the centre of city should be higher in order to save the basic cost while that in suburbs are lower, but the whole cost for both sides are nearly the same. I mean, the limits for building construction is not important（？这个意思是说那个law其实是没用的吗？）, which significance is just counteracted by other factors. （你的意思是市中心的房子涨价了 郊区的房价跌了，所以加起来房价就没变是吧？但是第一句都默认了有increase，感觉论证还需要提炼一下）

Thirdly, draw a conclusion simply from two countries is not creditable. One example is rarely sufficient to establish a general conclusion. Maybe the house price affected by different factors in different cities such as the condition of the traffic, or another city would have affected greatly by the limits of building constructions.（这个论点好宽泛。。还可以再展开）

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands, the arguer should provide clearer evidence to support his ideas that government’s limits won’t affect the price on house.