Argument109 第一次写作，欢迎大家狂拍砖！

七宝UID: 2136665

作者论断：因为Pine City 和Chestnut City 在二十年间经历了类似的房价上涨，而C城市并未建立法令，所以法令对于平均房价没有影响。因而Maple建立法令，对房价没有影响。
提纲：
1，Pine City 和Chestnut City 情况不同，不能类比。
2, Chestnut City 实施法律后情况如果无法确定。
3，Maple 的情况和以上两个城市不同。即使上述错误不存在，也不能推出结果。

Based on the assumption that laws limiting new construction have no effect on average housing prices, the argument concludes that if the same laws were to establish, Maple City’s average housing prices will have no change. To substantiate the conclusion, the argument employs several evidences through reasoning to reach this conclusion. The reasoning of the argument, however, is biased due to the inadequacy and partiality in the nature of evidences provided to justify the conclusion.

In the first place, the arguments reasons that laws limiting new construction have no effect on average housing prices by the evidence that the two city-Pine City and Chestnut City-experienced the same increase in average housing prices during the twenty years while one established strict laws designed to limit the number of new building that could be constructed in the city but the other did not. At first glance, this reasoning is plausible. After careful scrutinizing, however, there are some flaws existed in the process of reasoning.

Primarily, the two cities share only one similarity; that is, about the same size. Other situations, such as economy, transportation, habits of citizens and so on, may be of sheer difference. Perhaps twenty years ago the buildings in Pine City were in disorder because of abruptly increasing development. And the laws to limit the number of them had to be established to ensure the city developing in order so that the increasing housing prices followed. At the same time, no same situation occurred in Chestnut City. Or perhaps Pine City is a place known for its old building and beautiful environment and too many building would dwindle the average housing price while Chestnut City is a typical industrial metropolitan in which more buildings were needed to promote economics development. It may be the different attitude to the laws limiting new construction that lead to the similar increase in average housing price. For that matter, the variation in two cities is far too persuasive to allow for any meaningful conclusion. Whether the laws had effect on the average housing price should be judged by the comparison in one city before and after they put into practice. In addition, the argument could not exclude the possibility that whether average housing prices will increase more quickly if Chestnut City would establish laws that limit new building construction.

In the second place, similar to the above-mentioned flaw, even if laws limiting new construction have no effect on the two cities’ average housing prices, the argument is too premature to reason that Maple City’s average housing prices will have no change if strict laws on new building construction limit were to establish. The difference between Maple City and the other two cities-Pine City and Chestnut City-may be tremendous。And the argument could not conclude that Maple City would experience the same effect in the same laws.

To sum up, the argument has not succeeded in providing compelling reasons for its conclusion. To strength the conclusion, the speaker must provide evidence that no causal relation exists between  laws limiting the number of new construction and average housing price increase in Pine City and Chestnut City would not have any changes in average housing price if it established laws. In addition, the argument should rule out the other above-mentioned possibilities that may undermine the argument’ conclusion.

shinrainxieUID: 2189271

我看了开头，好像不太顺的，少了些连词，个人意见。互相学习:)