正文：
In this argument, the arguer concludes that house prises in the city of Maple will not been affected by any laws. To support his argument, the arguer cites the experiences of Pine city and Chestnut city. However, this argument, though carefully presented, is not a persuasive one, since it suffers from some logical flaws, as is discussed below.
To begin with, the arguer assumes unfairly that all other conditions in Pine city and Chestnut city are the same. However, he provide no strong evidences to demonstrate it. The housing prices can be influenced by lots of factors, such as locations, economic conditions, climate and so on. Without taking into account all that factors, the arguer could not reach the conclusion that laws are solely responsible for the housing prices.这段最后一句太失败了，当时有点紧张
Secondly, the arguer fails to provide us any detailed information concerning the base prices of the houses in the above two cities. Maybe after the increase, housing prices in Pine city are higher then that of Chestnut. Nor does the arguer provide information about the numbers of houses in these two cities. Perhaps the house numbers in Chestnut city are so low that even after the increase, house number in Chestnut city is still lower than that of Pine city. In short, this argument is weakened to some extent.
In the third place, 这一段我忘了怎么写的了， 大意是说即使以上的比较是对的，我们的maple市也会不一样，比如说最近有很多人想搬进来，但是房子又不多，此时限制房子数，肯定会带来房价上涨。[这段好像也写得不好]
Last but not the least, 也记不清了，是说那两个城市的经验是二十年前的，二十年时间很多东西都变了， 从现在开始情况会不一样。
In a summary, this argument, since suffers from so many critical flaws, is not well reasoned as it stands. To strenthen it, the arguer should provide more detailed information concerning the overall conditions of Pine city and Chestnut city. For us to better assess the argument, we also need information about the condition in Maple city.
不知道能不能得到四分
[ Last edited by yuemingjushi on 2005-8-28 at 18:15 ]作者: yuemingjushi 时间: 2005-8-28 17:45:52