【Flyer小组习作】argument109-7.10

MaryWongUID: 2619999

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."

In this letter, the editor asserts that it was no use to enact laws on limiting new building construction in order to affect average housing prices in Maple City. To support the assertion, the editor notes that although with strict laws, Pine City's housing prices had increased similar with Chestnut City, which did not establish any laws related to limit new building construction. However, there are several logical flaws in this argument, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the editor assumes that compared to Chestnut City, the Pine City has not got any benefit in establishing relevant laws in limiting building constructions. However, this is not necessarily the case. The argument does not offer any information on situations of buildings, population, demographic condition, and average housing prices twenty years ago in Pine City and Chestnut City. It is possible that Pine City, which is a metropolitan city with a large population, has attracted many business in house building to get benefit and it is critical for the government enact relevant laws in this field, otherwise there may be disorder in the estate market in Pine City. Perhaps Pine City has obvious progress in limiting house prices compared with itself before the enactment of the law in limiting the building construction. Maybe without any limit in new buildings, the house prices in Pine City would be much higher than now. That is to say, the mere similar figure of increasing prices in house prices in Pine City and Chestnut City could prove nothing if we are not informed any comparison of the situations of these two cities twenty years ago in many respects.

Moreover, the argument overlooks changes which could happen during twenty years in the field of new building construction. All facts given here in the letter are about the situations during last twenty years. Lacking careful analogy on market, population, and resident’s salary level today in Maple City, the experience in Pine City and Chestnut City before could help little even if the editor’s assumption above is approved to be true.

Finally, another problem with the argument involves the assumption that experience in other two cities could also apply to Maple City without any further illustration. Common sense tells us that every city has its own particular condition in population, economic level, environmental circumstance and even distinct culture. Perhaps there is small population in Chestnut City, where it is not necessary to limit the building construction for adequate lands there; or perhaps Maple City has the similar condition with Pine City, which without certain limitation there would be more and more heavy burden for residents to buy house.

In sum, as it stands the argument is indefensive. To better assess the argument it would be useful to know the specific situation in land utilization, population and income level of Pine City and Chestnut City. Also useful would be any information about the most recent statistic on the house prices and special analogy on the condition of building construction of Maple City.