【Flyer杀G作文组】第十次作业7月10日Argument109-By afufu1124

afufu1124UID: 2786856

Citing specific laws designed to limit the number of new buildings in Pine City and comparing change of average housing prices of Pine City to that of Chestnut City over the past twenty years, the speaker have concluded that Maple City would not achieve the goal of affecting average housing prices by establishing strict laws that limit new building construction. Close scrutiny, however, reveals that the line of reasoning did not lend a credible support to the recommendation.

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：★★★★★
20:45—20:26
DATE:10-7-19
To begin with, the argument assumes without justification that the limitation on the number of new buildings is the only different condition that could affect the average housing price in Pine City and Chestnut City. In fact, there are a host of other factors that are equally important, or even more important than the adoption of laws. Perhaps, for example, the economy of Chestnut City has developed better than that that of Pine City. Since better economy is likely to intrigue inflation in housing price, the pricing in Chestnut City might have been higher than the current level, leaving housing price in Pine City far behind it. Other factors includes population could also influence the price of houses in both cities yet in different trends that impair the fair comparison between the cities.

Another problem with the argument is that the author arbitrarily presupposing that the so-called “useless” limitation would also not have any effect on the average housing prices in Maple City, without considering the differences between the three cities. Factors such as population, economy may play a larger part than the limitation does in the change of average pricing in Maple City. Imagine that with the decrease of population for certain reason like migration, the less people the lower the housing price when number of house increase without the policies that limit it.

On balance, the recommendation relies on comparison between Pine City and Chestnut City with only one condition distinct, a doubtful assumption, that render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument the author would have to demonstrate that there are not other factor that plays an vital role in influencing average housing price of either cities. To bolster the assumption that the lesson learned from Pine City and Chestnut City could be applied in Maple City, evidence about must be provided by way of a local survey or study that concerning differences and resemblance of three cities. Only by doing so can it be called an advisable recommendation.