argument109 期待互拍啊！

hudou5522UID: 2135832

argument109
syllabus:
1.时序性因果错误（after this,therefore because of this）.P城市建立严厉的法律之后，房价的平均水平有了增加，就认为一定是法律起到了提高房价的作用。这不一定，可能是由于其他原因，如本地的环境好，属被开发的旅游胜地，或是可用于建造房屋的土地很少，开发新土地的成本很高而且容易造成环境破坏等等而对于Chestnut City，并不一定就因为没有法令的缘故，可能该城市人口众多、经济水平很高、人均收入高因而购买力强。
2.外推类错误（Aii things remain unchenged over time）.认为二十年前和P城市二十年前的情况可能和现在的很不同，因此，不能拿P城市二十年前的情况和今天的M城市来比较。
3.错误类比（False analogy）.作者提到的两个城市P和C很可能各自的情况不同，法令可能对其中一个有效等。

正文：
In this letter,the author recommend that if Maple City were to establish a strict law to limit the number of new buildings constructed,the law will exert no effect on the average housing price.To his conclusion,the author points out that while Pine City established a strict law to control the number of new buildings,Chestnut City ,however,did not have such laws,but they both experienced an increase in average housing prices.Besides,he infers that Chestnut City ,which did not establish a law to limit the number of new building twenty years ago but experienced a increasing housing prices, will be a model for Maple City to follow.At first glance,this argument seems very specific and convincing,A careful examination of ,however, would reveal how groundless it is.

To begin with,the author reckons that the increasing trend of housing prices,which was right after the law put into effect(carried out),definitely suggest that it is the result of the law.However,in itself,the sequence of these events,does not suffice to prove that earier development caused the later one.The increasing housing prices could have resulted from some other events instead:the environment there was newly improved,which was attractive to rich people who are extraordinarily careful about health;Perhaps the land there was relatively less than other place,thus people who eagered to purchase a house there must pay more;Or maybe the housing land was reclaimed costly,which would unarguably heighten the housing price,and so forth.Meanwhile,the increasing housing price in Chestnut City which did not establish a similar law is not necessarily related to not having such laws,there may be other reasons:the population was huge there,or the economic environment there was comparatively better ,and people are well-off,and so on.

Secondly,the arguer uses previous experence,instead of convincing survey,to illustrate that Maple City should follow the step of Chestnut City which did not limit its new house buildings experienced increasing housing price and do not put laws which limit new building number into effect,ignoring the factor of time which perhaps can chang everything including people's economic situations,tastes,or the fashion ...For example,in the past,the method used to open up land was backward and expensive ,nonetheless,with the rapid development of technology people could make the building of new house much easier and cheaper,as a result the price will also be less than be fore.On front of the current situation,no one can apply previous experience to nowadays' practice,so does the effect of a law.

Thirdly,the arguer's recommendation relies on what might be a poor analogy between Pine City ,Chestnut City and Maple City.The analogy False depends on the assumption that the situation in both Pine City and Chestnut City are similar.However,it is entirely possible that Pine City ,Chestnut City and Maple city are different.In short,without accounting for important possible differences between the three cities ,the arguer cannot reasonably on situation to prove the proposed method that Maple City should not establish laws to limit new houses' number will help Maple City.To strenghten the argument,instead of relying on a dubious analogy between Chestnut City and Maple City,the author should provide evidence,perhaps by way of a survey or housing program at Maple City,that the proposed method would help Maple City to increase housing price.

On balence,whether Maple City should make laws to limit housing building,is not appropriate to be determined by following the way of any cities whose situation is now not well-known,on the contrary,the superviser should search for more convincing evidence to refer to,such as a survey throughout the country,a reseach on housing price,and so forth.

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-2-27 14:04 编辑 ]

wildchildbjUID: 2164822

估计你都考完了吧，我觉得你的第一个after this because of this虽然对，但不合适，因为作者的论断是法令无影响啊，如果你说after this because of this不对的话，那就说法令可能有影响了，对全文就不支持了，所以写这个很麻烦的。这种arg特别讨厌，作者先自己驳倒一个观点再立一个，遇到就头疼，一般我不去管原来那个对不对