Argument109 [infinity小组]第八次作业

mayaUID: 199038

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."
485 words         TIME: 30 min
提纲：1、错误类比Chestnut和Pine
      2、把前两座城市的情况与Maple比较错误
      3、20年前情况不能说明现在
Merely based on the unreliable evidence of the argument, the editor of the Maple City newspaper draws the conclusion that the laws of limiting new building construction established by Maple City would have no effect on average housing prices. To support this conclusion, the editor provides some unreasonable evidence to indicate that the laws are ineffective. However, a careful examination of this argument, we can find that there are several critical flaws as follows.

The argument relies on what might be a false analogy between Pine City and Chestnut City. In order for Chestnut City serve as a standard for evaluating the effect of the law, the editor must assume that all relevant conditions involving the houses' situation in two cities or the residents' opinion to the laws, etc. are essentially the same. However, the assumption overlooks the possibility that there are difference of these two cities' economy. It is possible that in Chestnut City, the residents are often rich and affordable to the houses, in that the housing prices increased. And based on this reason, of course the officials in Chestnut City have no need to establish a new law to limit new building construction.

In addition, the argument concludes based on the fact that the Chestnut City has the same size as the Pine City has. In the editor's view, he would believe that this concrete relationship between these two cities can guide the Maple City. Yet the editor cannot provide more information about their relationship with the Maple City. Even if there is a same size between the Pine City and Chestnut City, but what is the size of Maple City? If it is a small city, can we say that the strict laws to limit new building construction has no effect? Or if it is a large city?

Even if the conditions of the Maple City is similar with the Pine City and Chestnut City, but in the two latter cities, the situation of increasing housing price is just the situation of the past twenty years. It is entirely possible that there is a descent of housing price lately. In that way, the editor cannot confirm whether the law can be effective. It is also possible that the former cities' housing price are continuing increasing, but there is no evidence to prove that the same trend is also happened in Maple City.

To sum up, the editor's conclusion about the effect of the law is unreliable. To better support his conclusion, the editor should provide more information about these three cities, such as the information of the populations, the size of the three cities, and even the extent of the wealth. Without these information, the editor cannot consider them in the same environment. Again, the editor should provides specific evidence that the data of the Pine City and Chestnut City is useful to Maple City, otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.