argument109-拍文修改小组 6.25

jessie_1017UID: 2704525

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: 429          TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2010-6-25 下午 03:23:56 In this letter, the editor of Maple City(MC) newspaper claims that strict laws made twenty years ago by MC will have no effect on average housing prices due to Chestnut City(CC) never made any laws to limit new building construction when face the same situation. However, as far as I concerned, this letter make several logic flaws as follows. First of all, the whole argument based on a false analogy. On one level, even though CC is same size as Pine City (PC) and experienced an increase in average housing pricing similar to PC, there is no guarantee that PC's average housing price increased by establishing strict laws will follows CC's example that price goes up but with none works about establishing strict laws. Perhaps people in PC have stronger lawful sense than people in CC and it is quite possible that laws limiting building construction will have effect on the price. On the other hand, MC and PC share little in common such as economical standard, geographic area and people's thoughts toward new construction, thus it is headstrong to conclude that laws will not influence average housing price in MC although MC make laws. Secondly, the fact that PC’s average housing price goes up might be explained by a variety of factors but not only attribute to strict laws establishment. Perhaps during that period over-nation housing price are increased and PC just follow the economic trends, or people’s income has risen up lead to the housing price increase and maybe the total housing price stays unchanged, but the popularity of PC has decreased sharply in a certain time. If so, it might be a mistake. Without ruling out other reasons it is unjustified conclude that laws are the cause of increase of housing price. In addition, the author unfairly assumes that laws limiting new construction have no effect on average housing price bears some relation to CC’s housing price increased without laws limits. However, the author provide no evidence to support that this is the case, nor does the author establish a causal relationship between them. It is quite possible that laws made by MC will work out and influence the price of house because of new building which are constructed is limited in MC or laws play an especially important role in buying a house. To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands, to strengthen it the editor should provide more sufficient evidence that demonstrate the relevance between laws and housing price, and give more reasons why laws will not influence housing price in MC.