argument109 第一次发自己的帖子，请鼓励！

littleheavenUID: 191407

The arguer recommends that Maple City would not establish strict laws to
limit new building construction because they have no effect on average
housing prices. To bolster the recommendation the arguer cites the
following facts: (1) the average housing prices in Pine City have increased since the city established the laws to limit the number of new buildings; (2) while Chestnut City’s prices have experienced an similar increase
without establishing any related law. Based on the above facts, the arguer concludes that laws limiting new construction have no effect on housing
prices. This argument is logically flawed in several respects.

First, the arguer overlooks a number of other factors that contribute to
the increase of average housing prices in both Chestnut City. Perhaps
laws limiting new construction were a primary reason for housing prices
in Pine City in which there are few lands for construction. While in
Chestnut City the similar increase might be due to increasing life level,
economic growth or a boom popularity. Without ruling out such possibility
the arguer cannot convince me that the laws have no effect on housing
prices, let alone whether Maple City would establish laws to limit the
number of constructions.

Secondly, even if the laws do have no effect on housing prices, the arguer further assumes that the above conclusion applies to Maple City.
However, the arguer provides no evidence to support his assumption. It
is equally possible that Maple City has the same situations with those of
Pine City. If this is the case, limiting laws would affect the housing prices
in Maple City.

Finally, even if the arguer’s conclusion drawn from the 20-years policy
contrast between Pine City and Chestnut City is justified, it would lend no
support to the recommendation that Maple City would not establish laws
to limit constructions in the future. Perhaps the today’s situation of Maple
City—such as popularity, economic, transportation—has changed a lot
compared to those of Pine City or Chestnut City the 20 years ago, so
limiting laws might significantly affect the housing prices in Maple City.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the
arguer must provide clearer evidence that Pine City and Chestnut City
have the same situation. To better assess the recommendation I would
need to know whether conditions of today’s Maple City is similar, if not the same, with those of Pine City and Chestnut City before 20 years.

forget56UID: 2137078

不好意思，找了好长时间没找到这个帖子，发晚了


The arguer recommends that Maple City would not establish strict laws to limit new building construction because they have no effect on average housing prices. To bolster the recommendation the arguer cites the following facts: (1) the average housing prices in Pine City have increased since the city established the laws to limit the number of new buildings; (2) while Chestnut City’s prices（不是city’s prices，是average house prices.） have experienced an similar increase without establishing any related law. Based on the above facts (the facts above) , the arguer concludes that laws limiting new construction have no effect on housing prices. This argument is logically flawed in several respects.

First, the arguer overlooks a number of other factors that contribute to the increase of average housing prices in both Chestnut City( both体现在哪里？). Perhaps laws limiting new construction were a primary reason for housing prices in Pine City in which there are few lands for construction. While in Chestnut City the similar increase might be due to increasing life level, economic growth or a boom popularity. Without ruling out such possibility the arguer cannot convince me that the laws have no effect on housing prices, let alone whether Maple City would establish laws to limit the number of constructions.

Secondly, even if the laws do have no effect on housing prices（强调一下在其他地方没有影响，要不就丢掉自己的立场了）, the arguer further assumes that the above conclusion applies to（应该用被动吧?!）  Maple City.（TS太过于模糊，而且逻辑有点不连贯，感觉even if 的让步并没有引出什么有力度的新的论点） However, the arguer provides no evidence to support his(this或许会更连贯一些) assumption. It is equally possible that Maple City has the same situations with those of Pine City. If this is the case, limiting laws would affect the housing prices in Maple City.

Finally, even if the arguer’s conclusion drawn from the 20-years policy（换成形容词或改为…of…形式） contrast between Pine City and Chestnut City is justified, it would lend no support to the recommendation that Maple City would not establish laws to limit constructions in the future. Perhaps the today’s situation of Maple City—such as popularity, economic, transportation—has changed a lot compared to those of Pine City or Chestnut City the 20 years ago, so limiting laws might significantly affect the housing prices in Maple City.(真地说起来，这一段与第二个论点似乎有点重复，都是在论述即使法律在其他地方没影响房价，在Maple却未必)

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the arguer must provide clearer evidence that Pine City and Chestnut City have the same situation. To better assess the recommendation I would need to know whether conditions of today’s Maple City is similar, if not the same, with those of Pine City and Chestnut City before 20 years.

结构把握得还不错，作为第一篇来说，论证语言也还可以。比较突出的问题是，但在论证上逻辑却不够清晰，建议在身体上下点功夫。
另外，题中并没有Maple政府是否应该出台这种法律的地方，它只是陈述一个事实，这样的法律不会影响房价。在审题时，要注意should和be的区别（imong在精华区有相关论述，可以去看看，我觉得这个问题有必要考虑一下）
作为第一篇，我觉得已经很不错了，比我强多了，加油！！

[ 本帖最后由 forget56 于 2006-2-26 10:11 编辑 ]

forget56UID: 2137078

对了，有一点忘说了，下次发贴注意一下，把题目和提纲一块发上来，因为版本可能不一样，光一个题号召对应的题目比较费时

littleheavenUID: 191407

多谢楼上的指点，第二天看自己的文章也会发现很多问题，看样子，作文不能只看，必须多练才行呀