argument109 同主题写作

plum371UID: 193449

109.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."
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。

In this argument, the author tries to convince us that if Maple City (MC) were to establish laws that limit new building construction, these laws will have no effect on average housing prices as the laws did in Chestnut City (CC) and Pine City(PC). I contend, however, a scrutiny will reveal several critical flaws as follows that undermine its reasoning.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that since both PC with laws and CC without laws have experienced an increase of average housing prices, the price changing has nothing to do with the law established to limit the number of new buildings. However, the effect of the law should not be decided in this way. Although the two cities have similar size and experience, it does not mean that the causes for the increase in both cities are exactly the same. It is extremely possible that the law also contributes to the price increasing, though we have no way to measure the exact proportion of its effect. It is also likely that compared with PC, CC is in possession of a larger population and more favorable location and enjoys a much higher level of economic development, so it may experience a more dramatic rise of the average housing prices if it enacted these laws. Either scenario, if true, would constitute a menace to the writer’s contention.

In addition, the writer falsely deems that all conditions will remain unchanged since the analogy between PC and CC 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. Consider, if later the demand for house far exceeds the house available to supply, chances will be good that strict laws limiting construction would contribute to the increase of housing prices, no matter in PC or CC.

Finally, even granted that the laws are irrelative to the rise of the housing price in CC and PC, it is unpersuasive to assume that MC would have the same experience due to a series of disparities among the three cities such as differences in the number of population, the economic situation and the demand and supply of the houses. As the above analysis of the analogy drew from PC and CC, absent such evidence concerning the discrepancies among the tree cities, it is impossible to assess whether the laws prove effective in MC.

In sum, hardly can the argument prove persuasive due to lack of information and well-round consideration. To strengthen the contention, the writer must show that laws restraining the number of new buildings indeed have little to do with the housing price, perhaps by a more reliable analogy and more detailed and sufficient evidence.

plum371UID: 193449

写了很久,此题感觉比较绕,感觉不少朋友的文章也都走了弯路,望相互指正!谢谢!