argument109 难写!!! 互拍!!!

IloveissuetooUID: 2323606

把以前写的又改了改, 还是很难看

TOPIC: ARGUMENT109 - 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.'
WORDS: 359     TIME: 原稿近40min, 又改... :(

The author of this letter concludes that laws limiting new construction would be of no effect on average housing prices, whether in Pine City (PC), Chestnut City (CC), or Maple, the local city (MC). Well-grounded reasoning it may appear at first glance, careful scrutiny reveals that it suffers from mainly two logic fallacies, as discussed below.

Firstly, comparison between the two cited examples, CC and PC, is incomplete, inherent differences of them neglected. The author fails to consider any number of factors that might influence the housing market and hence the average housing price, for instance, local economic conditions, the number of residents who require buying new houses, the average income of the population, etc. Perhaps economic was booming in PC, and residents had longed to better their living--in this particular issue, housing--conditions, in which the supply-and-demand scale would sure be turned upon enforcement of the limiting law. Or perhaps it simply the government forced to lower down the construction rate in order to prevent over-loaning and bubble prosper. In this case, the increase of housing price might indeed have nothing to do with the measure. In a word, without thorough analysis of the economic, and particularly housing, conditions of the two cities, the author cannot justifiably draw any conclusion.

Even concede that the limiting laws had no effort on the housing price in either CC or PC, by simply imposing the experience of other cities on the analysis of MC's case, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy. Similar to what I noted above, the effectiveness of the law would also be affected by a myriad of other factors (and I’m not going into details). Moreover, if the housing business in MC is already depressed now, there would be no need at all to implement any limit on the construction speed.

In sum, both the assumption and the reasoning of this argument are problematic, rendering the conclusion unpersuasive as it stands. The effectiveness of a measure should be measured on a case-by-case basis, which requires extensive investigations and considerations. Therefore, before any decision is made, the government should analyze the overall economic conditions of the city, and make decisions for the good of the citizens.

speaklessUID: 2205899

关键是找到突破口以后没精力往下写了..烦

alexQUID: 2226766

The author of this letter concludes that laws limiting new construction would be of no effect on average housing prices, whether in Pine City (PC), Chestnut City (CC), or Maple, the local city (MC). Well-grounded reasoning it may appear at first glance, careful scrutiny reveals that it suffers from mainly two logic fallacies, as discussed below.

Firstly, comparison between the two cited examples, CC and PC, is incomplete, inherent differences of them neglected. The author fails to consider any number of factors that might influence the housing market and hence the average housing price, for instance, local economic conditions, the number of residents who require buying new houses, the average income of the population, etc. Perhaps economic was booming in PC, and residents had longed to better their living--in this particular issue, housing--conditions, in which the supply-and-demand scale would sure be turned upon enforcement of the limiting law. Or perhaps it(这个用法没看懂) simply the government forced to lower down the construction rate in order to prevent over-loaning and bubble prosper. In this case, the increase of housing price might indeed have nothing to do with the measure. In a word, without thorough analysis of the economic, and particularly housing, conditions of the two cities, the author cannot justifiably draw any conclusion.
(这段主要论证了PC增长不是和law没有关系,我感觉再论述一下CC的增长和law有关系比较好,比如CC虽然没有law,但有和law的功能相类似的,比如地质不适合盖高楼,所以也起到限制作用.或是城市规划中,能建楼的土地已经所剩无几等,总之可以强调一下和law同作用的因素)

Even concede that the limiting laws had no effort on the housing price in either CC or PC, by simply imposing the experience of other cities on the analysis of MC's case, the author commits a fallacy of false analogy. Similar to what I noted above, the effectiveness of the law would also be affected by a myriad of other factors (and I’m not going into details). Moreover, if the housing business in MC is already depressed now, there would be no need at all to implement any limit on the construction speed.
(这段...你的那个(and I’m not going into details). 一下包含了太多内容,所以不好说你展开是否全面)

In sum, both the assumption and the reasoning of this argument are problematic, rendering the conclusion unpersuasive as it stands. The effectiveness of a measure should be measured on a case-by-case basis, which requires extensive investigations and considerations. Therefore, before any decision is made, the government should analyze the overall economic conditions of the city, and make decisions for the good of the citizens.

语言问题我就不改了 反正你怎么写感觉都比我的好

IloveissuetooUID: 2323606

Or perhaps it(这个用法没看懂) simply the government forced to lower down the construction rate in order to prevent over-loaning and bubble prosper.
这个... 那个.. 我也没看懂，估计是写到一半改了没改完
Or perhaps the government was forced to lower down the construction rate in order to prevent over-loaning and bubble economy.

我感觉再论述一下CC的增长和law有关系比较好,比如CC虽然没有law,但有和law的功能相类似的,比如地质不适合盖高楼,所以也起到限制作用.或是城市规划中,能建楼的土地已经所剩无几等,总之可以强调一下和law同作用的因素
这个问题.. 当时大约是没想到应该怎么写, 你说得有道理, 试试(绿色部分是修改后的)
Firstly, comparison between the two cited examples, CC and PC, is incomplete, inherent differences of them neglected. The author fails to consider any number of factors that might influence the housing market and hence the average housing price, for instance, local economic conditions, the number of residents who require buying new houses, the average income of the population, etc. As to PC, perhaps economic was booming in PC, and residents had longed to better their living--in this particular issue, housing--conditions, in which the supply-and-demand scale would sure be turned upon enforcement of the limiting law. Or perhaps the government was forced to lower down the construction rate in order to prevent over-loaning and bubble economy. In this case, the increase of housing price in PC might indeed have nothing to do with the measure. Similarly, in the case of CC, certain factors that mimic the influence of the limiting law might present. It is highly possibly that the city was already well developed with no much place available for new buildings, thus the number of new constructions would still be rare like that supposed in PC. In a word, without thorough analysis of the economic, and particularly housing, conditions of the two cities, the author cannot justifiably draw any conclusion.

你的那个(and I’m not going into details). 一下包含了太多内容,所以不好说你展开是否全面
这显然是不全面的，只是我不知道怎么写了。哪位指点一下？

谢谢鼓励啊~~这两天被issue (the thing, not the person) 打击了, 比我的小老鼠还要depress...

annlyseaUID: 2219320

真的是好认真啊
写这么多篇
+U

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

原帖由 Iloveissuetoo 于 2007-4-16 22:28 发表
issue (the thing, not the person)  

:L

pippo1983UID: 172110

;d: ;d: ;d: ;d: ;d: ;d:

ploploUID: 2320001

呵呵~
这篇可是除了名的BT文的说~
ps.你是学生物的吧~hoho~小老鼠~ ;P ;P ;P
ps.the thing, not the person？？？ :confused: :confused: :confused:

AaronangUID: 2574073

这题目真恶心，看着不对，就是不知怎么反驳