argument109 同主题第八期 拍砖留链互改：）

skywithstarsUID: 155027

0606G同主题写作第八期——Argument109

题目：
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."

翻译：
20年前Pine City建立了严格的法令来限制该市未来建造的高层建筑的数量。从那以后Pine City的平均房价显著上涨。和Pine City差不多同等规模的Chestnut City在过去20年中经历了和Pine City类似的房价上涨，但Chestnut City从未建立任何限制高层建筑的法令。因此限制建造高层建筑的法令对于平均房价没有影响。所以如果Maple City建立限制新的高层建筑的法令的话，这种法令不会影响平均房价。

出现频率：
总计频率：15
各月频率：06年2月：4  06年1月：1  05年9月：4  05年8月：4  05年7月：2  05年4月：1
critical words: strict laws that limit new buildings; average housing price
（1）false analogy. Though same size, differences between the two cities may greatly outweigh the similarities, thus make the analogy highly suspect. For example, the demographics of the population, the development of economy, the geographical and physical terrain有可能采用了以后有效果。两地的地理位置不同，经济发展状况不同，这些都会影响楼价，从而使得两市的楼市发展没有比较的基础。
（2）all things are equal.20年前的经验不能用于对未来的推测。
（3）即使在Chestnut City和Pine City都没有效果，也不能得出在Maple City也没效果。论者希望能从他人经验中得到指导，但是他还是应该立足于本地区看需求。

Although this argument appears to be relatively sound at first glance, after close examination, one will find it rather gratuitous to draw an analogy between Pine City (P City) and Chestnut City(C City), and thus it is also groundless to extend the conclusion based on that analogy to Maple City (M City).

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that with the same size and similar increase in average housing price, the fact drawn from C City is applicable to P City. However,  without knowing the demographics of the population, the development of economy, and the geographical terrain of the two places, it is unwarranted to make this analogy. It is entirely possible that C City developed very fast these years, and more companies have moved into C City compared with P City. Consequently, more job opportunities are created in C City, resulting in a dramatic growth in population and the demand for house. In this case, even without the limitation of the number of new buildings, the increase in the average housing prices in C City can be similar to P City where there was laws limitation. If strict laws were also established in C City, the increase might be much greater than P City. If so, the author’s conclusion that laws limiting new construction have no effect on average housing prices is not worthy of consideration.

Secondly, this argument is based on a problematic assumption that all conditions will remain unchanged since the analogy was made over the past twenty years. Even if laws have no effect on average housing prices in the past, it may not remain the same in the future. Whatever time it is, if the demand for house far exceeds the house available to supply, strict laws limiting construction will absolutely contribute to the increase of housing prices,  no matter in P City or C City.

Finally, even if I were to concede that laws had nothing to do with the increase in average housing price in P and C City, we still cannot predict that M City will experience the same. Since the author provides no evidence to substantiate that the similarities between M City and the other two cities outweigh the differences, no basis exists to apply the conclusion drawn from the two cities to M City.

In the final analysis, the analogy used to support the conclusion is open to doubt, thus rendering the author’s claim worthless. To better enhance this argument, the author should supply more complete and detailed analysis of demographic and economic conditions of M City, and then come to a final conclusion about the relationship between laws limiting new building construction and the increase in average housing prices.

WeOnUID: 2110447

Although this argument appears to be relatively sound at first glance, after close examination, one will find it rather gratuitous to draw an analogy between Pine City (P City) and Chestnut City(C City), and thus it is also groundless to extend the conclusion based on that analogy to Maple City (M City).

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that with the same size and similar increase in average housing price, the fact drawn from C City is applicable to P City. However,  without knowing the demographics of the population(意思是不是重复了？), the development of economy, and the geographical terrain of the two places, it is unwarranted to make this analogy. It is entirely possible that C City developed very fast these years, and more companies have moved into C City compared with P City. Consequently, more job opportunities are created in C City（更多的公司不代表就有更多的工作啊？呵呵）, resulting in a dramatic growth in population and the demand for house. In this case, even without the limitation of the number of new buildings, the increase in the average housing prices in C City can be similar to P City where there was laws limitation. If strict laws were also established in C City, the increase might be much greater than P City. If so, the author’s conclusion that laws limiting new construction have no effect on average housing prices is not worthy of consideration.

Secondly, this argument is based on a problematic assumption that all conditions will remain unchanged since the analogy was made over the past twenty years. Even if laws have no effect on average housing prices in the past, it may not remain the same in the future. Whatever time it is, if the demand for house far exceeds the house available to supply（需求超过房子？）, strict laws limiting construction will absolutely contribute to the increase of housing prices,  no matter in P City or C City.

Finally, even if I were to concede that laws had nothing to do with the increase in average housing price in P and C City, we still cannot predict that M City will experience the same. Since the author provides no evidence to substantiate that the similarities between M City and the other two cities outweigh the differences, no basis exists to apply the conclusion drawn from the two cities to M City.（感觉这段内容有些空，不知道MPC并入一段写会怎么样）

In the final analysis, the analogy used to support the conclusion is open to doubt, thus rendering the author’s claim worthless. To better enhance this argument, the author should supply more complete and detailed analysis of demographic and economic conditions of M City, and then come to a final conclusion about the relationship between laws limiting new building construction and the increase in average housing prices.
楼主写的很好了，思路清晰，用词也都很好，很多词语，句型都是我要学习的。
我是第一次改作文，肯定有不妥的地方，请您指出，呵呵
下面是我的第一篇argu，请您指正
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 WeOn 于 2006-2-26 19:38 编辑 ]