【Flyer杀G作文组】07月10日Argument109-By 潇

红绡UID: 2839171

ARGUMENT 109

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."

难度：★★★★★

The Maple City newspaper cites comparison between two cities on laws limiting the number of new building and average housing price as the precedent to conclude that laws that limit new building construction will have no effect on average housing prices. Obviously, so simple dissertation would expose many loopholes easy to be demolished, as following.

First of all, the author mentioned in the Pine City, the average housing prices have increased since strict laws designed to restrict beyond desired limit news building constructed, on the contrary, however Chestnut City as large as Pine City has not regulated any laws confining news building constructions’ quantity, but reaching the same average housing prices. Only relied on the simplex contradistinction between two assumed parallel cities, the argument is definitely shakable. On account of just one common point between two cities, there is no other material explaining details about other related status, like economics situation, quantity of population, and exploitable area of land and so on which can be considered as analyzing the availability of limiting laws on number of new building. Without description about these respects, the author can hardly prove that the two cities have comparability.

Secondly, we also know nothing about the experience in past twenty years of Chestnut City with average housing prices similar to Pine City. If there are other factors playing the same role as the construction limit laws? Maybe there is less useful area of land for construction of new building than Pine City, or the region’s land developers have invested and accomplished enough new buildings which occupy all the available places or else reasons. It is impossible to assert the laws have no effect on average housing prices, so the editorial saying that it is clear that laws limiting new construction do not get to average housing prices seems too abrupt and arbitrary.

Finally, even if the laws have effect on the prices, it is unreasonable to draw a conclusion that Maple City would arrive at the same effect as Chestnut City. I have to say, it is too preposterous to allege as above without any evidence or introduction about Maple City, even we have no idea about the size of Maple City. How does the editor come to such a conclusion? Whatsoever for doing so, it bases on no grounds.

To sum up, if the author wants to enhance the argumentation and improve the reliability of the conclusion, the dissertation has to rely on several proof and evidence, as follows. First, if the editorial needs an effective contradistinction, it must provide details about the two cities’ situation not only the size, such as economics state, people’s living level, number of population, and available places for construction and so on. Secondly, the editor must avoid other factors’ effect for average housing prices. Moreover, it is vital to instruct Maple City details compared with the two Cities, and then with reasonable and thorough analysis they can form the conclusion.