Argument109【六人作文小组】第1周第5次作业目前遇到的最无语的A

sneakerliuUID: 2481691

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: 437          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2009-1-9
提纲1两个城市对MAPLE的错误类比
    2 CC涨价可能有其他原因，如果有LAW，价更高
3 PC可能更接近MAPLE，也许法律的功效还没体现出来，也许以后由于法律PC会涨更多
总之变态
The author of this letter avers that any strict laws introduce to limit new construction of Maple City will leave no effect based on the evidence of Pine City and Cheastnut City. Seems reasonable his ratiocination is, however, after close scrutiny of the reasons presented, many are groundless and unconvincing.

To begin with, the author suggests that as Chestnut City (CC) also experienced similar increase of housing prise compared with the Pine City (PC) without the strict laws that PC had implemented 20 years ago, the Maple City (MC) 's strict law will not be effective. Unfortunately, the author fails to present any related evidence that the situation in MC has any similarity to both CC and PC. The author also overlooks the changing situation during the 20 years. Thus, it is too hastily to conclude based on two 20-year evidences of other cities.

Additionally, even if I were to concede that there do exist certain link between the CC and MC in the size of city and the wealth of residents, both play vital role of the housing prize. The MC is also very hard to duplicate CC's success of increasing housing prize as the PC may had introduce other stimulate project to motive the housing prize instead of a strict law. Or perhaps, the municipality has legislate certain laws to motive the citizen of other cities to buy houses in CC, which would surely increase the local housing price. Moreover, the housing prize would rise more dramatically if the PC introduced a strict law additionally. In this respect, none could satisfactorily conclude the strict law is ineffective.

Furthermore, the true situation of MC could be more similar to that of PC, which introduces its own laws. The two cities may enjoy the same location and population. It is equally possible the policies of PC 20 years ago are about the same to that of the MC at the moment. Thus the economic environments of both cities are quite alike that indicate the MC is likely to duplicate the success of PC. Moreover, the author also overlooks the further effects of housing markets. Maybe it still does not meet the time that a strict law show its power. Maybe, 10 years later the changing of housing price in PC will be more significant. After taking into consider these conditions, it is easier to conclude the strict laws are effective to the housing market.

In sum, to better bolster the author's view, further of the three cities is needed. The then policies of PC and CC are also required. Further study of how long would a law show its power is also vital in this argument.