Argument109=美丽G程小组=小组第4次作业by 猫斯基

猫斯基UID: 2607814

In this well-organized letter, the editor of the Maple City newspaper believes that even if strict laws limiting new building construction are made, little effect will have on average housing prices, since he made a comparison of two cities-C and P, which both have the increased housing prices, but one designed the laws to limit the new buildings construction, however, the other did not. Although it seems logical at the very first sight, more flaws can be found after comprehensive analysis.

Firstly, the editor commits the fallacy of "after this, therefore, because of this". The sequence of the two issues--limiting the number of new buildings and the rising of the average housing prices, although coincidently connected, is not sufficient to prove that they are causal related. It is much possible that because the investment environment in P City has much advanced during the past twenty years, the boosting of business results in the flourish of the real estate, thus it is undoubted that the house prices will go up. Simultaneously, twenty years is such a long period that currency can possibly devaluate, thus making the housing prices upgraded. So only judging from the fact that the housing prices raised after the law was designed, the editor can not draw a conclusion that they are causal related.

Next, the writer unfairly equals the City P to City C. Since they are two different cities and no evidence is presented that they are similar in many key facets, he even can not make such a ridiculous comparison. From the geographical circumstances, traffic conditions, standard of living, to the governmental policies, marketing environment, the writer provides no information to us that they have any similarities, so it is possible that they are totally distinct, thus such a comparison is of little sense, since no effective conclusion can be drawn from it. It is not difficult to understand that the assumption designing the laws to limit the new building construction has little effect on the average housing prices can not be established. It is even possible that if City C made such legislation, the present housing prices may be even higher or lower, which means that it is of much influence. Since the writer does not tell us once City C adopted such a law, what the housing prices will be like, it is quite natural for us to make such a hypothesis. Besides, to consider whether such a law influences the average housing prices in City P, the writer should make comparisons under such conditions when the law is put into use and it is not devoted into marketing at the same time rather than contrasting with City C. By and large, the writer draws a proof less summing-up that laws limiting new buildings construction make no contributions to the climbing of the average housing prices.
Last but not least, the writer makes a false analogy. Even we admit the assumption that legislation on new building construction has no effect on the average housing prices, he does not prove that the same instance can come about in City M. The writer unfairly equals City M to City P and C, nevertheless, he even does not mention any similarities between the three cities to convince us that such a measure can also have no effect on City M. Lacking such argumentation, hardly can we believe that City M's housing prices will not ascend as soon as the law were made.

In sum, in order to give us a convincing letter, the editor should firstly make sure that he could present us sufficient proof to convince us that City P and C are do quite similar in many very facets, thus can we suggest that laws limiting new buildings have no effect on the average housing prices on the two cites, what is more, he also needs to investigate whether City M is comparable to the two cities, only sufficient evidence is presented that they three are quite parallel that what is viable in one city also works in the other two, can we be persuaded that even strict laws limiting new building construction is made in M, little effect will have on average housing prices.

  

jessicamarineUID: 2595044

In this well-organized(建议删，有种上来就与对方为伍的错觉） letter, the editor of the Maple City newspaper believes that even if strict laws limiting new building construction are made（虚拟语气，are 变were）, little effect will（would） have on average housing prices, since he made a comparison of two cities-C and P, which both have the increased housing prices, but one designed the laws to limit the new buildings construction, however, the other did not. Although it seems logical at the very first sight, more flaws can be found after comprehensive analysis. Firstly, the editor commits the fallacy of "after this, therefore, because of this". The sequence of the two issues--limiting the number of new buildings and the rising of the average housing prices, although coincidently connected, is not sufficient to prove that they are causal related. It is much possible that because the investment environment in P City has much advanced during the past twenty years, the boosting of business results in the flourish of the real estate, thus it is undoubted that the house prices will go up. Simultaneously, twenty years is such a long period that currency can possibly devaluate, thus making the housing prices upgraded. So only judging from the fact that the housing prices raised after the law was designed, the editor can not draw a conclusion that they are causal related. Next, the writer unfairly equals the City P to City C. Since they are two different cities and no evidence is presented that they are similar in many key facets, he even can not make such a ridiculous comparison. From the geographical circumstances, traffic conditions, standard of living, to the governmental policies, marketing environment, the writer provides no information to us that they have any similarities, so it is possible that they are totally distinct, thus such a comparison is of little sense, since no effective conclusion can be drawn from it. It is not difficult to understand that the assumption designing the laws to limit the new building construction has little effect on the average housing prices can not be established. It is even possible that if City C made such legislation, the present housing prices may be even higher or lower, which means that it is of much influence. Since the writer does not tell us once City C adopted such a law, what the housing prices will be like, it is quite natural for us to make such a hypothesis. Besides, to consider whether such a law influences the average housing prices in City P, the writer should make comparisons under such conditions when the law is put into use and it is not devoted into marketing at the same time rather than contrasting with City C. By and large, the writer draws a proof less summing-up that laws limiting new buildings construction make no contributions to the climbing of the average housing prices. Last but not least, the writer makes a false analogy. Even we admit the assumption that legislation on new building construction has no effect on the average housing prices, he does not prove that the same instance can come about in City M. The writer unfairly equals City M to City P and C, nevertheless, he even does not mention any similarities between the three cities to convince us that such a measure can also have no effect on City M. Lacking such argumentation, hardly can we believe that City M's housing prices will not ascend as soon as the law were made. In sum, in order to give us a convincing letter, the editor should firstly make sure that he could present us sufficient proof to convince us that City P and C are do quite similar in many very facets, thus can we suggest that laws limiting new buildings have no effect on the average housing prices on the two cites（红字可删，简洁些）, what is more, he also needs to investigate whether City M is comparable to the two cities, only when（这个，我印象中应该加个WHEN，群聊时再讨论） sufficient evidence is presented that they three are quite parallel that what is viable in one city also works in the other two, can we be persuaded that even strict laws limiting new building construction is made in M, little effect will have on average housing prices. 总评： 进步很明显。写得非常不错，每一段的驳论都很到位，尤其进展的是首尾段，显然脱离了模板套路，不错。各段衔接也很好。这次出了几处稍微有些不简洁，都很好。加油！