Flyer 杀G 组 BY Selina A 109

selinashenUID: 2736030

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: 2010-7-11 下午 04:43:36


By comparing two cities’ legislation differences on housing issue, this argument has drawn a ill-considered conclusion with no cogent reasoning. Even it is well presented, it is not well reasoned. It commits three major mistakes; the causality fallacy and analogy fallacy and the generalizational fallacy. These three points will be discuss in detail as follows.

Firstly, this argument commits " After This, Therefore, Because of This" fallacy. Even the average housing prices in Pine City have increased dramatically after the legislation on limiting the number of new buildings. However, this argument fails to consider other possible alternatives which could lead to the consequence of increased housing prices. Maybe the new immigrants within the 20 years might contribute to the rising housing prices. Or, there might be other possibility that the average income of local citizens has increase dramatically, therefore, the housing prices would increase accordingly. There might be many other reasons which could lead to the same consequence. Unless this argument could rule out other possible casual explanations, this argument would not be warranted.

Secondly, this argument commits a analogy fallacy. By comparing Pine City with Chestnut city on the issue as size, this argument hastely draw the conclusion that laws limiting new construction have no effect on average housing prices. However, what happened in Pine city may not happen in Chesetnut city even they have similar size. But this similarity can not be generalized to other issues. This analysis does not consider the demographic differences. Maybe the two cities have big disparity among population, local average income and productivity. Hence, this reasoning is fallacious.

Third, It generalized the case from Chestnut city to Maple city without considering the differences between two cities. As has been stated above, the establishment of laws on limiting building construction should consider a lot of issue, even other cities' experiences are importance. However, Maple city should take a tailor-made research in its own city at first. After all, legislation is a very serious issue and takes more efforts. In addition, this argument made a mistake on historical analogy. The fact that Chestnut city’s housing prices increased without law enforcement within the last 20 years does not necessarily mean this kind of law will not take effect on Maple city today. What happened 20 years ago may or may not happen today. Hence, this reasoning is ill-considered. Maple city needs to consider the demographic differences, the public opinions about establishing this law, and the housing market status quo. Unless all the specific issues have been considered, this conclusion still need be revised.

Overall, the reasoning behind the effect of laws to limit the number of new buildings seems logical as presented above, since the Cities have some similarities. However, before any decisions are made about the legislation of the law on housing issue, the Maple city's government still needs to evaluate its own differences on demography, GDP or other relative issues.

江雪UID: 2790520

为了后人搜索方便 标题要写完整 只写A是不规范的 要写Argument

selinashenUID: 2736030

2# 江雪

哦,好的.谢谢提醒

红绡UID: 2839171

1# selinashen

修改-----by潇

By comparing two cities’ legislation differences on housing issue, this argument has drawn a ill-considered conclusion with no cogent reasoning. Even it is well presented, it is not well reasoned. It commits three major mistakes
(commits three major errors/makes three major mistakes); the causality fallacy and analogy fallacy and the generalization fallacy. These three points will be discussed in detail as follows.

Firstly, this argument commits "After This, Therefore, Because of This" fallacy. Even the average housing prices in Pine City have increased dramatically after the legislation on limiting the number of new buildings. However, this argument fails to consider other possible alternatives which could lead to the consequence of increased housing prices. Maybe the new immigrants within the 20 years might contribute to the rising housing prices. Or, there might be other possibility that the average income of local citizens has increase dramatically,(there might be other possibilities such as that…)therefore, the housing prices would increase accordingly. There might be many other reasons which could lead to the same consequence. Unless this argument could rule out other possible casual (?) explanations, this argument would not be warranted.

Secondly, this argument commits
an analogy fallacy. By comparing Pine City with Chestnut city on the issue as size, this argument hastily draw the conclusion that laws limiting new construction have no effect on average housing prices. However, what happened in Pine city may not happen in Chestnut city even they have similar size. But this similarity cannot be generalized to other issues. (but this similarity cannot generalize other issues.)This analysis does not consider the demographic differences. Maybe the two cities have big disparity among population, local average income and productivity. Hence, this reasoning is fallacious.

Third, it generalized the case from Chestnut city to Maple city without considering the differences between two cities. As has been stated above, the establishment of laws on limiting building construction should consider（reference） a lot of issues, even other cities' experiences are importance. However, Maple city should take a tailor-made research in its own city at first. After all, legislation is a very serious issue and takes more efforts. In addition, this argument made a mistake on historical analogy. The fact that Chestnut city’s housing prices increased without law enforcement within the last 20 years does not necessarily（definitely） mean this kind of law will not take effect on Maple city today. What happened 20 years ago may or may not happen today. Hence, this reasoning is ill-considered. Maple city needs to consider the demographic differences, the public opinions about establishing this law, and the housing market status quo. Unless all the specific issues have been considered, this conclusion still need be revised.(specific issues可以展开列举下)

Overall, the reasoning behind the effect of laws to limit the number of new buildings seems logical as presented above, since the Cities have some similarities. However, before any decisions are made about the legislation of the law on housing issue, the Maple city's government still needs to evaluate its own differences on demography, GDP or other relative issues.（最后总结段最好具体列出攻击后argument需要的证据和改进）

Fallacy/Fallacious用太多。写的好快！
论证：3.5
语言：3.5
==============分数：3.5