Maple County

jiaxiaoyu8848UID: 2897378

While it may be true that the house prices in Maple County will increase significantly, the author of the passage does not provide a cogent case by just raising up two other counties which implemented similar policy before. Even though we want an accurate prediction of our policy, the argument, full of questions need to be answered, does not strongly demonstrate that the prices of houses will boom.

The first question we need to answer is whether Chesnut County's past experience after implementing a policy like preventing development of farmland can suggest that house price in Maple will just increase slightly. Perhaps, besides the policy, there are other factors which are more significant. Demand of buying houses in Chesnut might be little, so even the policy decreased the supply of new house, the demand might not surpass the supply and the prices of houses did not rise so much. If Maple's residents demand for houses can be satisfied by the supply, the policy will not lead to the house prices raising so much.

In addition, I would like to question the example of Pine County. The author provides this county which has adopted the restrictions on the development of new residential housing to indicate that if Maple restrains the use of farmland, the house prices will increase. However, we must make a clarify of the difference between policy that restrict building new houses and that refrain using farming land. The former one directly leaded to a reduce of resident houses, but the latter one does not. Even though we cannot use a farming land to build houses, we can develop places, such as abandoned factories and schools, rebuild the old districts, etc. Then more residential houses can be provided and house prices may not increase that high. Then the policy which is intended to restrict the use of farming land may not have the result predicted by the council.

Even though the policy can lead to a increase, we just do not know whether the house prices will boom up recently. The prices of houses have more than twice as 15 years ago since the policy was adopted, but we do not know whether the prices were increased just after the policy is implemented. If the prices were boom up just after the policy took into effect, the prices in Maple may significantly increase. But if the prices of the houses in Pine were raised gradually by increasing a little each year, the prices in Maple may just as well not raise that quickly. In order to brace the argument, the author should add more evidence.

Clearly then, the argument fails to give us a compelling proof and the prediction of the argument may not be reasonable unless these questions above are addressed.

dennis_szsyUID: 3133539

第一次改，不一定准确，欢迎讨论

While it may be true that the housing prices in Maple County will increase significantly, the author of the passage does not provide a cogent case by just raising up (这个好像只有提高的意思, 和 raise question有区别) two other counties which implemented similar policy before. Even though we want an accurate prediction of our policy, the argument, full of questions needed to be answered, does not strongly demonstrate that the prices of houses will boom.

The first question we need to answer is whether Chesnut County's past experience after implementing a policy like preventing development of farmland can suggest that house price in Maple will just increase slightly. Perhaps, besides the policy, there are other factors which are more significant. Demand of buying houses in Chesnut might be little, so even the policy decreased the supply of new house, the demand might not surpass the supply and the prices of houses did not rise so much. If Maple's residents demand for houses can be satisfied by the supply, the policy will not lead to the housing prices raising(rising, 价格好像是用rise的) so much.

In addition, I would like to question the example of Pine County. The author provides this county which has adopted the restrictions on the development of new residential housing to indicate that if Maple restrains the use of farmland, the house prices will increase. However, we must make a clarify (clarification) of the difference between policy that restricts building new houses and that refrains using farming land. The former one directly leads to a reduce (reduction) of residential houses, but the latter one does not. Even though we cannot use farming land to build houses, we can develop places (有这种说法吗？我不确定), such as abandoned factories and schools, rebuild the old districts, etc. Then more residential houses can be provided and housing prices may not increase that high. Then the policy which is intended to restrict the use of farming land may not have the result predicted by the council.

Even though the policy can lead to an increase, we just (yet?) do not know whether the housing prices will boom up (up去掉? boom就有增加的意思) recently (不应该是recently, immediately 更合适). The prices of houses have more than twice as 15 years ago since the policy was adopted, but we do not know whether the prices were increased just after the policy was implemented. If the prices were boom up (up去掉? boom就有增加的意思) just after the policy took into effect, the prices in Maple may significantly increase. But if the prices of the houses in Pine were raised (直接用rose, 价格 were raised这一用法不知道有没有，没记错的话好像没有这一说法) gradually by increasing a little each year, the prices in Maple may just as well (as well 不应该是放在句尾的吗？) not raise that quickly. In order to brace the argument, the author should add more evidence.

Clearly then, the argument fails to give us a compelling proof and the prediction of the argument may not be reasonable unless these questions above are addressed.

完了...不懂得如何调字色...
lz 能顺便帮忙看看我写的吗，第一篇argu
https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... &extra=page%3D1