argument109 第一次写arg，第一次参加同主题，求牛牛来拍拍吧

alex_leeUID: 2227596

"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."

提纲：
1．        PC，CC 的比较是无效的。
2．        在PC,CC的例子中，都不能排除laws的影响。
3．        从PC,CC推到MC，是无根据的。

By making a comparison of the two regions, Pine City (PC) and Chestnut City, the arguer concludes that the legislation of laws to limit new building construction in Maple City (MC) will have no effect on average housing prices in that area. However, the reasoning of this argument is questionable.

First, the arguer presume that the two city, PC and CC are comparable because of the two have the similar sizes. Yet the arguer fails to consider other different aspects of the two cities that will affect the average housing prices and make his comparison doubtable. For instance, MC might close to the sea while CC is located near a desert. There might be less residents living in MC than CC. The economic condition of MC is far better than that of CC and the average living standards in MC is higher. There are a fewer of international famous universities located in CC while the quality of education in MC is quite poor. All such factors have a great influence on the housing prices and differences in these factors make the arguer’s comparison meaningless even the two cities have similar sizes.  

Even if one accepts the comparison, the argument is still questionable for arguer can not rule out the influence of the laws on the housing prices increase of both MC and CC. For instance, in the last 20 years, the council of CC tried their beat to improve the invest environment of the city and attracted many companies to build new factories or open new branches in CC. More job opportunities were created and more people around the counties moved into CC and made the needs of new houses far outweighed their supply. Under such circumstance, there’s no doubt that if there’re similar laws in CC like those enacted in PC to limit the construction of new buildings, the house prices in CC would increase even faster. On the other hand, in PC, it’s also quite possible that the laws limiting new constructions are the major reason for the increase of housing prices. In the 20 years, unlike the fast development of CC, PC suffered from a economical regression. Many companies bankrupted and many people moved to other places, like CC. The needs of new houses increased very slowly and therefore, if not the laws to keep the supply of new houses always less than the needs, the average housing prices would decrease rather than increase. The argue fails to consider such possibilities and makes his conclusion unreliable.

Further, even both comparison and the conclusion on the useless of laws on average housing prices are valid, the arguer still can’t advocate that legislations of such laws have no effect in MC now. There might lots of difference between MC and PC or CC, such as economics, educations, location, weather which impact the average housing prices. Unless the arguer proved that MC is much alike the other two cites, his generation of the useless of laws invalid.

In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unwarranted unless he can prove his comparison among the three cities is valid and rule out the relations between the laws limiting new building and the average housing prices.

荧惑UID: 2280559

By making a comparison of the two regions, Pine City (PC) and Chestnut City, the arguer concludes that the legislation of laws to limit new building construction in Maple City (MC) will have no effect on average housing prices in that area. However, the reasoning of this argument is questionable.

First, the arguer presume(s) that the two city, PC and CC are comparable because of(/) the two have the similar sizes. Yet(...感觉很怪) the arguer fails to consider other different aspects of the two cities that will(...may) affect the average housing prices and this make his comparison doubtable. For instance, MC might close to the sea while CC is located near a desert. There might be less residents living in MC than CC. The economic condition of MC is far better than that of CC and the average living standards in MC is higher. There are a fewer of international famous universities located in CC while the quality of education in MC is quite poor. All such factors have a great influence on the housing prices and differences in these factors make the arguer’s comparison meaningless even the two cities have similar sizes.  
(例子多,内容少)
Even if one accepts the comparison, the argument is still questionable for arguer can not rule out the influence of the laws on the housing prices increase of both MC and CC. For instance, in the last 20 years, the council of CC tried their beat to improve the invest environment of the city and attracted many companies to build new factories or open new branches in CC. More job opportunities were created and more people around the counties moved into CC and made the needs of new houses far outweighed their supply. Under such circumstance, there’s no doubt that if there’re similar laws in CC like those enacted in PC to limit the construction of new buildings, the house prices in CC would increase even faster. On the other hand, in PC, it’s also quite possible that the laws limiting new constructions are the major reason for the increase of housing prices. In the 20 years, unlike the fast development of CC, PC suffered from a economical regression. Many companies bankrupted and many people moved to other places, like CC. The needs of new houses increased very slowly and therefore, if not the laws to keep the supply of new houses always less than the needs, the average housing prices would decrease rather than increase. The argue fails to consider such possibilities and makes his conclusion unreliable.

Further, even both comparison and the conclusion on the useless of laws on average housing prices are valid, the arguer still can’t advocate that legislations of such laws have no effect in MC now. There might lots of difference between MC and PC or CC, such as economics, educations, location, weather which impact the average housing prices. Unless the arguer proved that MC is much alike the other two cites, his generation of the useless of laws invalid.

In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unwarranted unless he can prove his comparison among the three cities is valid and rule out the relations between the laws limiting new building and the average housing prices.
(例子多,论证少,这是好事...但 光有例子,鲜有论证的话...不知道...有点语法错误)
...

tianeUID: 2299690

By making a comparison of the two regions, Pine City (PC) and Chestnut City, the arguer concludes that the legislation of laws to limit new building construction in Maple City (MC) will have no effect on average housing prices in that area. However, the reasoning of this argument is questionable.

First, the arguer presumes that the two city, PC and CC are comparable because of the two have the(cut) similar sizes. Yet the arguer fails to consider other different aspects of the two cities that will affect the average housing prices and makes his comparison doubtable. For instance, MC might close to the sea while CC is located near a desert. There might be less residents living in MC than CC. The economic condition of MC is far better than that of CC and the average living standards in MC is higher.(这句加上maybe吧) There are a fewer of international famous universities located in CC while the quality of education in MC is quite poor. All such factors have a great influence on the housing prices and differences in these factors make the arguer’s comparison meaningless even the two cities have similar sizes.  

Even if one accepts the comparison, the argument is still questionable for arguer can not rule out the influence of the laws on the housing prices increase of both MC and CC. For instance, in the last 20 years, the council of CC tried their beat to improve the invest environment of the city and attracted many companies to build new factories or open new branches in CC. More job opportunities were created and more people around the counties moved into CC and made the needs of new houses far outweighed their supply. Under such circumstance, there’s no doubt that if there’re similar laws in CC like those enacted in PC to limit the construction of new buildings, the house prices in CC would increase even faster. On the other hand, in PC, it’s also quite possible that the laws limiting new constructions are the major reason for the increase of housing prices. In the 20 years, unlike the fast development of CC, PC suffered from a（an） economical regression. Many companies bankrupted and many people moved to other places, like CC. The needs of new houses increased very slowly and therefore, if not the laws to keep the supply of new houses always less than the needs, the average housing prices would decrease rather than increase. The argue fails to consider such possibilities and makes his conclusion unreliable.

Further, even both comparison and the conclusion on the useless of laws on average housing prices are valid, the arguer still can’t advocate that legislations of such laws have no effect in MC now. There might （be）lots of difference between MC and PC or CC, such as economics, educations, location, weather which impacts the average housing prices. Unless the arguer proved that MC is much alike the other two cites, his generation of the useless of laws invalid.

In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unwarranted unless he can prove his comparison among the three cities is valid and rule out the relations between the laws limiting new building and the average housing prices.

语法错误不少，例子不用太多说得也不要太肯定，一两个例子再加两三句论证就好了。第一次写，已经很不错了
+u+u

alex_leeUID: 2227596

:handshake 修改了一下，求楼上两位，再帮我看看，有进步没，感谢感谢: )

By making a comparison of the two regions, Pine City (PC) and Chestnut City, the arguer concludes that the legislation of laws to limit new building construction in Maple City (MC) will have no effect on average housing prices in that area. However, the reasoning of this argument is questionable.

First, the arguer presumes that the two cities, PC and CC are comparable because of the similar sizes. Yet the arguer fails to consider other different aspects of the two cities that will affect the average housing prices and makes his comparison doubtable. For instance, MC might close to the sea while CC is located near a desert. There might be less residents living in MC than CC. All such factors have a great influence on the housing prices and without considering these aspects of the two cities, the arguer can not understand the true relations between the laws and the average housing prices.  

Even if one accepts the comparison, the argument is still questionable for arguer can not rule out the influence of the laws on the housing prices increase in both MC and CC. It’s quite possible that because of the economical improvement in CC, much more people come to CC and the needs of new houses are quite huge. Under such circumstance, if there’re similar laws in CC like those enacted in PC to limit the construction of new buildings, the house prices in CC would increase even faster. On the other hand, in PC, it’s also quite possible that the laws limiting new constructions are the major reason for the increase of housing prices. In the 20 years, PC suffered from a economical regression. Many companies bankrupted and many people moved to other places, like CC. The needs of new houses increased very slowly and therefore, if not the laws to keep the supply of new houses always less than the needs, the average housing prices would decrease rather than increase. The argue fails to consider such possibilities. Until he can provide more concrete evidences to prove that the laws don’t affect the housing prices, his argument is dubious.

Further, even both comparison and the conclusion on the useless of laws on average housing prices are valid; the arguer still can’t advocate that legislations of such laws have no effect in MC now. There might lots of difference between MC and PC or CC, such as economics, educations, location, weather which impact the efficiency of laws on average housing prices. Unless the arguer proved that MC is much alike the other two cites, his generation of the useless of laws invalid.

In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unwarranted unless he can prove his comparison among the three cities is valid and rule out the relations between the laws limiting new building and the average housing prices.

荧惑UID: 2280559

By making a comparison of the two regions, Pine City (PC) and Chestnut City, the arguer concludes that the legislation of laws to limit new building construction in Maple City (MC) will have no effect on average housing prices in that area. However, the reasoning of this argument is questionable.

First, the arguer presumes that the two cities, PC and CC are comparable because of the similar sizes. Yet the arguer fails to consider other different aspects of the two cities that will affect the average housing prices and (主语不一致了吧,这里还是ARGUER?) makes his comparison doubtable. For instance, MC might close to the sea while CC is located near a desert. There might be less residents living in MC than CC. All such factors have a great influence on the housing prices and without considering these aspects of the two cities, the arguer can not understand(这种说法不好...provide no evidence about) the true relations between the laws and the average housing prices.  

Even if one accepts the comparison, the argument is still questionable for(that) arguer can not rule out the influence of the laws on the housing prices increase in both MC and CC. It’s quite possible that because of the economical improvement in CC, much more people come to CC and the needs(demand) of new houses are quite huge. Under such circumstance, even if there’re similar(去掉) laws established in CC ,as those enacted in PC to limit the construction of new buildings, the house prices in CC would increase even faster. On the other hand, in PC, it’s also quite possible that the laws limiting new constructions are the major reason for the increase of housing prices. In the 20 years, PC suffered from a economical regression. Many companies bankrupted and many people moved to other places, like CC. The needs(demand) of new houses increased very slowly and therefore, if not the laws to keep(restrict) the supply of new houses always less than the needs, the average housing prices would decrease rather than increase. The argue fails to consider such possibilities. Until he can provide more concrete evidences to prove that the laws don’t affect the housing prices, his argument is dubious.

Further, even both comparison and the conclusion on the useless of laws on average housing prices are valid; the arguer still can’t advocate that legislations of such laws have no effect in MC now. There might lots of difference between MC and PC or CC, such as economics, educations, location, weather which impact the efficiency of laws on average housing prices. Unless the arguer proved that MC is much alike the other two cites, his generation of the useless of laws invalid.

In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unwarranted unless he can prove his comparison among the three cities is valid and rule out the relations between the laws limiting new building and the average housing prices.

--------
好很多了~~

alex_leeUID: 2227596

谢了，谢了:handshake