欢迎拍--6月25日 ARGU(109)

xiaohuimi291UID: 2760978

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: 415
TIME: 02:30:00
DATE: 2010-6-25 15:59:53

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Maple City could establish laws to limit the number of new buildings without influencing the prices of houses. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer makes a contradition between Pine City which establish the law twenty years ago and Chestnut City which don't, but the two countries have a similar increase in housing prices. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal that it is logically unacceptable.
First, although there are points of comparison, many dissimilarities are remained. The argument, thus, relying on the assumption that Pine City is analogous to Chestnut City in all aspects is so weak. It is, for example, possible that Chestnut City has been experincing a rapid development in economics which promote the growth of housing prices while Pine City has merely increased its prices of houses which is highly associated with the law. Meanwhile, it is also possible that Pine City’s housing prices grew on a large scale in first ten years and Chestnut City’s price did in second ten years becouse of other factors. In either event, only relying on such a simple similarity of city’s size to make a comparison, there would be little effective.
Second, the arguer also commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”. Even if it is the fact that the limiting law has no relation with growth of housing prices, the event that happened twenty years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that it will get the same results today. As the
saying goes “every thing change in a minute”. Twenty years is enough time to make the number of house play an irreplaceble role in prices of houses since there’s so many people in city and so little room for them to live. Unfortunately, the arguer assumes without justification that the conditions have remained the same at different times.
Third, the arguer can’t assert that the housing prices in Maple City wouldn’t be influenced by the law by having this conclusion just because of what happen in Pine City and Chestnut City since different city has its own backgrounds. A multitude of factors , such as the size of city, the number of its people, the available amount of agrarian, would affect housing prices.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility bacause the comparison the arguer makes in the analysis is invalid. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more specific evidence of background in Maple City.

jessie_1017UID: 2704525

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Maple City could establish laws to limit the number of new buildings without influencing the prices of houses. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer makes a contradition between Pine City which establish the law twenty years ago and Chestnut City which don't, but the two countries have a similar increase in housing prices. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal that it is logically unacceptable.

First, although there are points of comparison, many dissimilarities are remained. The argument, thus, relying on the assumption that Pine City is analogous to Chestnut City in all aspects is so weak. It is, for example, possible that Chestnut City has been experincing a rapid development in economics which promote the growth of housing prices while Pine City has merely increased its prices of houses which is highly associated with the law. Meanwhile, it is also possible that Pine City’s housing prices grew on a large scale in first ten years and Chestnut City’s price did in second ten years becouse of other factors. In either event, only relying on such a simple similarity of city’s size to make a comparison, there would be little effective.[/color]（写得不错~~学习）

Second, the arguer also commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”（根据下面的意思，把equal换成unchanged更合适些）. Even if it is the fact that the limiting law has no relation with growth of housing prices, the event that happened twenty years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that it will get the same results today. As the
saying goes “every thing change in a minute”. Twenty years is enough time to make the number of house play an irreplaceble role in prices of houses since there’s so many people in city and so little room for them to live. Unfortunately, the arguer assumes without justification that the conditions have remained the same at different times.

Third, the arguer can’t assert that the housing prices in Maple City wouldn’t be influenced by the law by having this conclusion just because of what happen in Pine City and Chestnut City since different city has its own backgrounds（different cities have their own backgrounds）. A multitude of factors , such as the size of city, the number of its people, the available amount of agrarian, would affect housing prices.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility bacause the comparison the arguer makes in the analysis is invalid. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should provide more specific evidence of background in Maple City.