【Flyer杀G】小组-7.10 Argument109, by Sean

柏拉图的世界UID: 2581296

TOPIC: ARGUMENT109 - 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."
WORDS: 285
TIME: 00:28:20
DATE: 2010/7/11 21:32:32

The author concludes that if laws to limit new building construction in Maple City (MC) is established, such an action won't have any effect on average housing prices. His/her reasoning is mainly based on the comparison between Pine City (PC) and Chestnut City (CC), both of which experienced increase of average housing prices in the event that PC enforced limitation laws while CC didn’t. However, the author's inference suffers from many logic flaws.

Casting a look at the time of two cases the author cites, a marked gap of time exists. Both policies and consequential fluctuation of PC and CC were during the past twenty years, and the author fails to convince us that the relevant situation during the twenty years is still and will remain the same. Probably in the twenty years, the population increases considerably, contributing to intensive demand for housing buildings. In this scenario, if constraints of number of building are put into force, the supply of housing would turn to be rather insufficient compared with the demands, and therefore the average housing prices will increase by virtue of basic economic principles.

Besides the difference of time, the author also overlooks the variation of locations where he/she attempts to apply the same relationship between limitation and housing prices. In short, the case of PC and CC are not necessarily to be true in MC. It holds a chance that in PC and CC are very few constructors of buildings. In the past twenty years, buildings accomplished in PC and CC might be mite due to scarcity of constructors, and had nothing to do with presence or absence of the laws. While in MC, there may be a great number of constructors and affluent building materials, labors and funds. Under the condition that the limitation are appropriately set, the amount of new buildings will strongly link to the upper bound in the laws.

Similar flaws resulting from neglect of territorial distinction exist in the comparison between PC and CC. The author mentions the similarity of the two cities in size while loses sight of possible factors that impact on the housing prices. For example, the local government in CC might invite many policies to incite endemic demand of housing, such as reducing interests of housing loans, providing housing subsidy. Consequently much more people decided to buy houses, and the prices increased. At the same time, only the laws to limit building were executing in PC, reducing housing supply and thus increasing prices. Revealed through foregoing analysis in this possible case, both laws in PC acts the same as policies in CC to amplify the gap between demand and supply, and both succeeded to elevate housing prices.

To conclude, the author examines the average housing prices in PC and CC and the limitation laws while overlooking many factors possibly disturbing his/her comparison. Better that more information is offered, justifying the comparison of PC and CC in order to demonstrate ineffectiveness of limitation laws. Moreover, to extent the conclusion in PC and CC to MC also calls details for demonstrating necessary stability in chronology.

selinashenUID: 2736030

1# 柏拉图的世界

抱歉，昨晚就改完了，
感觉你在一个点上论证太久，
还有一个点没有找到
批语上有，
不打分了，