Argument109 076G同主题写作

红药UID：2120027

109The 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."



黑线这个恐怖的argument……


一眼望上去我只看到三个城市，有两个地域analogy，一个时间analogy……太难写了吧……
还有两天就考了……望天……
黑线，还是拜托大人看看偶的烂文吧……




原argument
论点：MC实施限制也没关系，限制盖楼与房价无关
论据：1。PC和CC size类似， 而且经历涨价时间类似（20年）－－》暗示PC和CC有可比性－－》PC限制，CC不限制，两者都涨价－－》房间和限制盖楼无关
         2。MC实施限制，房价也没啥关系。潜台词是MC和PC、CC有可比性，20年前的事情现在也一样。

俺的攻击思路：
1。PC和CC之间没有足够的相似之处，从而限制与房间无关的结论不可信。
（1）eg geographic character, history, population, average incoming, developing rate, public concern. ect.
（2） 就算承认了这些都差不多，那么比较的20年间是否这些都保持一致？是否20年来两者之间唯一的差别就是限制与否。
（3）对比的结果，是否房价增长类似？比如说涨幅，波动周期。即在控制类比的条件下，表现相同，则唯一的变量（限制法令）为无关变量。

2。即使确实限制在PC和CC两地对房价无影响，不等于对于MC也无影响。
    （1）MC是否和PC有足够的相似之处？地点类比
    （2）20年前无关，是否现在也无关？时间类比


黑线，我怎么看都只有两段了啦～～

虽然老是觉得那个average看着不舒服，但是不能找出明显的错误。
The editor of the Maple City (MC) suggests that legislation on building-construction restriction in MC would not affect the average housing prices; however, this argument suffers from several deconstructive fallacies--faulty analogy on location and time at least.

First of all, the editor hinted that Pine City (PC) and Chestnut City (CC) have sufficient similarities for the comparison citing the facts that these two cites have almost the same size. Yet the editor fails to exam and eliminate other possible factors, which can effect average price, for instance, geographic characters, population, developing rate, average price, public concern, tradition and so on. If any of these factors mentioned above are not comparable between the tow cities, the conclusion drawn from the analogy are highly doubtable, since even one of these factor's effect on price may hide the influence of the law.

Moreover, granting that PC and CC had sufficient similarities 20 years ago, there might be fundamental distinctions between them as time elapses. It's entirely possible that people in CC are more willingly to buy house than PC, and this tendency accelerates year after year. This tendency turns into actual housing buying action and causes the house price’s increasing. At mean time, restriction on new housing construction promotes the price in PC. In this scenario, housing price in PC and CC seem to have no relationship with the law, nevertheless it’s not the case in fact.

Besides, Admitting that all the factors remains unchanged over years and bear decisive similarities, the wave curve of housing price in both cities should be statistically similar, as the law is an irrelevant factor--in other word, all the things matters are same, the results of price should be same too, or show certain comparability at least. However, the editor provides no evidence of such comparability’s existence. Hence, it’s too presumptuous to deduce the conclusion that the law does not influence housing price.

Further more, even if the irrelevance between restriction and housing price is proved in PC, the irrelevance may not exist in AC. In common sense, no new building will leads to lacking of room, and make housing more “valuable”—that’s price rising. As an illustrate, both city of PC and CC might experience population dropping, which guarantee room abundance, and make the law lost its significance in price deciding. In other term, the law does not have effect on housing pricing only in PC and CC; therefore, the editor’s assertion is unwarranted at most, let alone the differences between now and two decades ago.

To recapitulate, the conclusion is unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it, the editor should prove similarities among PC, CC and AC from 20 years ago to future, and rule out other possibilities that may mask the relationship between restriction law and housing price. Otherwise, I will suspend my judgment on this argument as premature at most.  


Word：479  time：很久很久……快两个小时……真难写啊！




[ 本帖最后由 红药 于 2007-3-5 08:19 编辑 ]

暗夜飞UID：2207944

我觉得你的思路和我和很像，这篇的确难写。早上看了前面的思路，总觉得不大苟同。终于看见个想法差不多的，忍不住冒个泡。
还有我后天就考了，也晕。但还是要加油啊。

aunknownUID：2173661

本来早就该来拍了,一直没时间,看来只能熬夜改出来了,困啊! 改的不好请多包含


The editor of the Maple City (MC) suggests that legislation on building-construction restriction in MC would not affect the average housing prices; however, this argument suffers from several deconstructive fallacies--faulty analogy on location and time at least.
开头不错，不过不知道你为什么不指出来作者的结论呢？你这种风格还是第一次见，不过我觉得还是提一下结论比较好。

First of all, the editor hinted hintthat Pine City (PC) and Chestnut City (CC) have sufficient similarities for the comparison +by citing the facts that these two cites have almost the same size. Yet the editor fails to exam and eliminate other possible factors, which can effect average price, for instance, such as geographic characters, population, developing rate, average price, public concern, tradition and so on. 为什么不展开呢？怎么影响的？ If any of these factors mentioned above are not comparable between the tow cities, the conclusion drawn from the analogy are highly doubtable, since even one of these factor's effect on price may hide the influence of the law.
整体不错，不过感觉你既然举了一些特征，如果不展开的话，总觉得不是很有说服力

Moreover, granting that PC and CC had sufficient similarities 20 years ago, there might be fundamental distinctions between them as time elapses. It's entirely possible that people in CC are more willingly to buy house than PC, and this tendency accelerates year after year. This tendency turns into actual housing buying action 这句话觉得别扭，还不如直接删去说后面的就行了 and causes the house price’s increasing. At mean time, restriction on new housing construction promotes the price in PC. In this scenario, housing price in PC and CC seem to have no relationship with the law, nevertheless it’s not the case in fact.
这段挺好的， 觉得有些地方可以在多说两句，可能更详细一点，觉得把供求关系的话加上去，可能更好一点
Besides, Admitting that all the factors remains unchanged over years and bear decisive similarities, the wave curve of housing price in both cities should be statistically similar, as the law is an irrelevant factor--in other word, all the things matters are same, the results of price should be same too, or show certain comparability at least. 上面这句太复杂点了吧，觉得还是写成短句更好一点。 However, the editor provides no evidence of such comparability’s existence. Hence, it’s too presumptuous to deduce the conclusion that the law does not influence housing price.
觉得这点有点牵强，作者已经说了CC的价格的增长是和PC的相似的，那么你的质疑是不是….
Further more, even if the irrelevance between restriction and housing price is proved in PC, the irrelevance may not exist in AC. In common sense, no new building will leads to lacking of room, and make housing more “valuable”—that’s price rising. As an illustrate, both city of PC and CC might experience population dropping, which guarantee room abundance, and make the law lost its significance in price deciding. In other term, the law does not have effect on housing pricing only in PC and CC; therefore, the editor’s assertion is unwarranted at most, let alone the differences between now and two decades ago.
你这段开始没看懂，不过仔细琢磨了一下，恩！非常不错的观点，偶就没想到。 不过我觉得解释的不是很清楚。是不是对比的说一下更好一点，直接说，尽管法律的实施减少了新房子的数量，但PC 由于人口下降，房屋大量空缺弥补了市场的缺口，这在某种程度上抵消了法律的影响。然而，现在MC人口是增加的， 因此不会有这种情况的发生。（这点我就借用了， 嘿嘿！）
To recapitulate, the conclusion is unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it, the editor should prove similarities among PC, CC and AC from 20 years ago to future, and rule out other possibilities that may mask the relationship between restriction law and housing price. Otherwise, I will suspend my judgment on this argument as premature at most.  

可以看出楼主的逻辑能力，强！文章的很多词，句， 语法都挺不错的。
但是没段的论证上感觉有的地方说的不是很清，这种比较类型的题我觉得就是要对比的说，可能让人更清晰。
其他的我也提不出太多毛病，都在文中指出来了！
这篇是我写的最吃力的一篇，觉得比red meat 的那道都难说清楚，汗！
关于你那篇批argument17的文章我也是比较赞同的，原来的那个牛牛是有点误导人，其实按自己的思路，让步攻击就挺好的了！不行了太晚了，被这篇argument折磨的快不行了，要睡了。呵呵！

[ 本帖最后由 aunknown 于 2007-3-6 02:58 编辑 ]