Argrment109, 好像不是很好写？

fishergirlUID: 152325

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。因此限制高层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 announces that the 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 either. Although sounds plausible, the letter fails in the following aspects.

To begin with, there is no direct data informing that the strict laws designed to limit the number of new buildings of Pine City have no effect on the average housing prices. It is really possible that the average housing prices of Pine City is the result of such laws limiting new construction because that building there is in short supply. To make its conclusion more reliable, the author should add some information about the average housing prices in Pine City earlier than 20 years ago, and compare the prices before the laws designed and after that. Without self-comparison the invalidity of the laws is still open to doubt.

Next, conditions of Pine City and Chestnut City may be different greatly so that they two cannot be compared on earth. Firstly, their locations and economical conditions may be much different. It is easy to understand that average building prices in coastland are much more higher than those in backland. So although Chestnut City has no such laws, it also had experienced the increasing of average housing prices thanks to its location. Secondly, this letter doesn't afford any information that if Chestnut City builds some other alternative laws to affect its building prices. If it is true, then it is unfair to deny the effect of such laws in Pine City. Thirdly, it is also impossible that if Chestnut City has the laws, the average housing prices there would increase much higher and much more quickly. Thus what happened in Chestnut City cannot prove the laws’ useless in Pine City.

Last but not least, even if it is definite that in Pine City such laws limiting new building's number cannot influent the average housing prices, it may be dissimilar in Maple City. For example, if Maple City has great population but the existing buildings there are inadequate, then limiting number of new construction there will likely influent the average housing prices.

In conclusion, it is hasty in the letter to conclude that the laws limiting number of new construction in Pine City have no effect on the increasing average housing prices there, and it is even more ridiculous to predict the uselessness of such kind of laws in Maple City.

imongUID: 140258

的确不是很好写 我觉得你的文章可能理的还不很清楚

首先分析一下脉络
Argument的第一部分是通过A和B的比较来证明law对price没影响 第二部分是引申到C来证明如果使用law也影响不到

那你的Argument就应该照着这个条理：
1.law对price没影响这一点不能成立
原因： 例如很可能B的case是有另外的因素counterbalance掉了law的影响
2.即使在A和B的case中law对price没影响，不等于在CASE C中同样law没有影响

你的b1一开始迎着argument的结论就顶了回去，结果好像影响到了自己的条理似的 没能驾驭好题目中的反正反，自己还是容易绕进去 b1那个data看着就感觉confusing的

或者有没有考虑过分成3个段落 每个段落只分析一个城市 然后连结起来成为一篇完整的分析（指出argument的不合理和应当补充之处）呢？只是一个设想。

fishergirlUID: 152325

谢谢imong，我也觉得B1的开头那句话看起来很绕的样子。

其实我的三段基本上是这样的思路：

1。laws 对 P 城的房价还是可能有影响的。如：没有该法律，P城的房价不会升得那么高。另外，很重要的一点是，需要从P城自己的时间上来做纵向的对比，看法律颁布前后的房价变化。

2。C城和P成的情况不一样，所以尽管没有法律的影响，C城的房价也升了。或者，尤其他的政策起到了和该法律一样的作用。

3。即使在上述两个城市该法律确是没有影响，到了M城也可能有不同的结果。

感觉还是自己的道行不够啊，写着写着自己就晕了：（

下去再改改！

fishergirlUID: 152325

In this argument, the author announces that the 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 either. Although sounds plausible, the letter fails in the following aspects.

To begin with, there is no explicit evidence denying the potential relationship between the laws and the increasing average housing prices in Pine City. Perhaps without the laws, the average housing prices in Pine city would be much lower than it is now. And it is also probable that Pine City enacted other laws that weakened the effect of the laws limiting new construction. To make its conclusion more reliable, the author should supply some information about the average housing prices in Pine City earlier than 20 years ago, and compare the prices before the laws designed and after that. Without such self-comparison the invalidity of the laws is still open to doubt.

Next, conditions of Pine City and Chestnut City may be different greatly so that they two cannot be compared at all. Firstly, their locations and economical conditions may be much different. It is easy to understand that average building prices in coastland are much more higher than those in backland. So although Chestnut City designed no such laws, it also had experienced the increasing of average housing prices for its location predominance and developed economy. Secondly, this letter doesn't afford any information that whether Chestnut City builds some other alternative laws to affect its building prices. If it is true, then it is unfair to deny the effect of such laws in Pine City. Thirdly, it is also impossible that if Chestnut City had designed the similar laws, the average housing prices there would increase much higher and much more quickly. Thus what happened in Chestnut City cannot prove the laws’ inefficacy in Pine City.

Last but not least, even if it is proved that the laws is useless in Pine City, it may be dissimilar in Maple City. For example, if Maple City has great population but the existing buildings there are inadequate, then limiting number of new construction there will likely influent the average housing prices. Or Maple City is facing with an excess inflation of realty exploiture, which requires such a strict limitation to cool the abnormal prosperity. All in a word, different shoes fit different feet, it is the same in any other conditions.

In conclusion, it is hasty in the letter to conclude that the laws limiting number of new construction in Pine City have no effect on the increasing average housing prices there. Furthermore, Maple City cannot take the experience in other cities as its own principle. What it should do is to consider its own conditions and make the appropriate decision.

不知道这样是不是清楚一点?