argument109(sally组)有拍必回

xinxinzi0719UID: 182812

ARGUMENT 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."

提纲：
1。先说P 城和C 城 房价的上涨和这项措施没有因果关系
2。再说p城和c城不能一起比较
3。说明这项措施在c和p城无效 不一定在m城无效
By making a comparison between the Pine City, an area with strict laws of the limitation on the number of new buildings and therefore increasing average housing prices, with the Chestnut City, a region of no new building number restriction and consequently the same price rising, the argument for not establishing such laws in Maple City since the laws had no effect on the prices seems logical. However, after a close scrutiny, the argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well reasoned as discussed below.

To begin with, the recommendation relies on the experiences of the relationship between restriction of new building number and average housing prices in Pine City and Chestnut City. Yet, the author mistakes the correlation in time for the casualty of the restriction and housing prices , that is the assumption overlooks other possible alternatives for the rising average housing prices both in Pine City and Chestnut City. Such alternatives include the fact that it is possible that numerous migrants moved to the Chestnut City, or the geographic terrain where the Chestnut City is located. It is possible that new migrants required more houses in contrast to the fewer available houses, which led to an increasing in the prices of house .Or perhaps the Chestnut City located in the mountainous areas so that the costs of building new houses would rise due to the fewer and fewer regions for building new houses. In addition, as the flushing of economics in Pine City, the incomes people earned are higher than before and subsequently more and more people purchased new houses, causing the prices of houses to rise during the past twenty years. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the Maple City to focus on the real cause than the superficial reason that is the laws of limitation on number of new buildings.

Furthermore, the analogy between Pine City and Chestnut City is meaningless unless the author takes enough dissimilarity into account. Since the two cities are located in different areas of the country, there may be lot of distinctions between them. Perhaps the Pine City is on the plain with vast suitable lands for building houses whereas the Chestnut City is on the mountainous areas where the land for building is limited. In such circumstances, the laws are more effective and needed in Pine City, for preventing the real estate developer from wasting money on building so many houses that exceed the requirements of the citizens, than in Chestnut City. Perhaps the real estate field of Pine City was in a disorder situation, calling for the government to establish such laws to rebuild and maintain the positive order of real estate area. On the contrary, the Chestnut City was in good condition that such laws are not necessary. Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the author cannot assume that the laws on house number restriction are not effective on causing the rise of houses.

Finally, the author cannot assume the situation that such laws on the house number restriction have no effect on the average house prices In Pine City and Chestnut City will bring about the same result in Maple City. The author fails to consider other alternative possibilities in the analysis. Perhaps, the real estate field in Maple City fell into disorder, which required such laws on the number of building to be constructed. Perhaps, the Maple City was an historical city and therefore such laws were inevitable to maintain the original features of the old city. Or it is possible that there was limited land in Maple City, as a result, any new building constructed will sacrifice the valuable cultivated land under the condition that the supply of exist houses already satisfy the demand of living.

Overall, the reasoning behind not establishing laws on the house number limitation in Maple City seems logical as presented above since the experiences in Pine City and Chestnut City. However, before any final decisions are made, the Maple City government should evaluate other possible cause for the house price rising and the dissimilarities among the Pine City, Chestnut City and Maple City.

weiweizhuUID: 179352

By making a comparison between the Pine City, an area with strict laws of the limitation on the number of new buildings and therefore increasing average housing prices, with the Chestnut City, a region of no new building number restriction and consequently the same price rising, the argument for not establishing such laws in Maple City since the laws had no effect on the prices seems logical.（开头对题目的总结挺好的，不过是不是太长了点。开始就这么长会不会让老师看得很累） However, after a close scrutiny, the argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well reasoned as discussed below.

To begin with, the recommendation relies on the experiences（？？？） of the relationship between restriction of new building number and average housing prices in Pine City and Chestnut City. Yet, the author mistakes the correlation in time for the casualty of the restriction and housing prices , that is the assumption overlooks other possible alternatives for the rising average housing prices both in Pine City and Chestnut City. Such alternatives include the fact that it is possible that numerous migrants moved to the Chestnut City, or the geographic terrain where the Chestnut City is located. It is possible that new migrants required more houses in contrast to the fewer available houses, which led to an increasing in the prices of house .Or perhaps the Chestnut City located in the mountainous areas so that the costs of building new houses would rise due to the fewer and fewer regions for building new houses.（我觉得这边有点罗嗦，用了好几个it is possible和太多的that） In addition, as the flushing（flourishing） of economics in Pine City, the incomes people earned are higher than before and subsequently more and more people purchased new houses, causing the prices of houses to rise during the past twenty years. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the Maple City to focus on the real cause than the superficial reason that is the laws of limitation on number of new buildings.（这边分析得好透哦，举了好多可能性，思维真的很开阔）

Furthermore, the analogy between Pine City and Chestnut City is meaningless unless the author takes enough dissimilarity into account（和第一段有点相似啊）. Since the two cities are located in different areas of the country, there may be lot of distinctions between them. Perhaps the Pine City is on the plain with vast suitable lands for building houses whereas the Chestnut City is on the mountainous areas where the land for building is limited. In such circumstances, the laws are more effective and needed in Pine City, for preventing the real estate developer from wasting money on building so many houses that exceed the requirements of the citizens, than in Chestnut City.（这个例子有点牵强，pine再平原更适合建房子不应该限制才对啊） Perhaps the real estate field of Pine City was in a disorder situation, calling for the government to establish such laws to rebuild and maintain the positive order of real estate area. On the contrary, the Chestnut City was in good condition that such laws are not necessary.（后面得可能性举的比较好） Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the author cannot assume that the laws on house number restriction are not effective on causing the rise of houses.

Finally, the author cannot assume the situation that such laws on the house number restriction have no effect on the average house prices In Pine City and Chestnut City will bring about the same result in Maple City. The author fails to consider other alternative possibilities in the analysis. Perhaps, the real estate field in Maple City fell into disorder, which required such laws on the number of building to be constructed. Perhaps, the Maple City was an historical city and therefore such laws were inevitable to maintain the original features of the old city（赞）. Or it is possible that there was limited land in Maple City, as a result, any new building constructed will sacrifice the valuable cultivated land under the condition that the supply of exist houses already satisfy the demand of living.

Overall, the reasoning behind not establishing laws on the house number limitation in Maple City seems logical as presented above since the experiences in Pine City and Chestnut City. However, before any final decisions are made, the Maple City government should evaluate other possible cause for the house price rising and the dissimilarities among the Pine City, Chestnut City and Maple city.

楼主能在这么短的时间内写这么多字实在另人佩服啊

看了你的作文发现你的思路很开阔想到的情况比较多

不过觉得文章有点罗嗦，而且长句太多看的很辛苦

帮我也看看吧 issue56  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
argument  https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
我的issue写得还没有你argument多