argument109 限制盖房，感觉有点难写~~~

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 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."
WORDS：449          TIME：0:30:00          DATE：2006-2-21
写的有一些混乱的，帮我理理吧，感觉这篇好难写~~~
改过一遍，但感觉还是怪怪的。
提纲：
1.C没有采用新法规不代表新法规没有效用。毕竟没有人知道当初没有选择的道路会引向何方。这样，我们有充分的理由假设可能C要是采用了，可能情况比现在还好
2. 就算承认在C真的不好用，可是这并不能排除新法规在P市的影响，一方面两市不同的情况。另一方面，作者没有给出P市采用法规之前的具体情况，要是排除了其他原因，房价单纯的随着新法规的采用而增加的话，那么新法规的作用自然不可忽视
3．就算在CP都没有用，在M也不一定没有用。房价取决于很多方面，比如地价，地产税，交通情况，还有供求等等。很有可能M地的房价不高的原因是因为供过于求，那么在这种情况下削减供应还是可以提高价格的。
Prior to accepting the author's recommendation that new strict laws in limiting the construction of new buildings would have no effect on average housing prices in Maple City, the evidence presented in this argument requires an in-depth scrutiny from several aspects, by doing which, I find that the author seems to have unduly relied on the experience of Pine City and Chestnut City without accounting for other possibilities and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.

To begin with, the author illogically presumes that no new laws are established to limit new building construction in Chestnut City indicates that the new laws would be no use at all. However, this might not be the case. After all, no one would exactly know where the path not taken would ultimately lead. In that case, we have sufficient reasons to assume that Chestnut City would become far better and the average housing prices would increase more sharply than its status quo, given that the new laws were employed. Hence, unless providing detailed information about the condition after the new laws are enforced in Chestnut, the author's assumption that the new laws are not useful cannot convince me at all.

In addition, even assuming that new laws being adopted in Chestnut do have no effect, it still cannot serve to exclude the new law's influence in Pine City. In fact, the author fails to recognize the inherent differences between Pine City and Chestnut City, say, environment, policies, the level prices, etc, all of which would probably affect the outcome of the new laws. Moreover, the author also offers no clear information about the condition of Pine City before the new laws were put into use there. Without that evidence, it is entirely possible that the average housing prices augment sharply since using the new laws if ruling out other possible factors that might have impact on the housing prices. Undoubtedly, if this is true, the function of the new laws cannot be overlooked.

Before coming to finish my analysis, we might as well turn our focus to the author's conclusion which unfairly suggests that the new law would not work in Maple City merely in consideration of the situation of Pine City and Chestnut City. However, we are not informed of any information about the rooted reason that contributes to the low housing prices in Maple City. As is known to all, the average housing prices depend on several dimensions, say, the land price, the property taxes, the condition of transportation around houses and also the condition of supply and demand in the market. It is entirely possible that the in Maple City the rooted reason for the low average housing prices is that they have so many buildings constructed that the supply has significantly surpassed the demand. Common sense informs us that regardless of other factors, the price can be enhanced by cutting down the supply. In this sense, the new laws which limit new building construction in Maple City is presumed to be a success provided that the main factor that determines price is supply and demand in the building construction market of Maple City.

To sum up, the argument is weakened by the flaws discussed above. Much work is needed before drawing a convincible conclusion; otherwise, the argument would be unfounded.

lawrence1984UID: 178326

argument109 限制盖房，感觉有点难写~~~

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 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."
WORDS：449          TIME：0:30:00          DATE：2006-2-21
写的有一些混乱的，帮我理理吧，感觉这篇好难写~~~
改过一遍，但感觉还是怪怪的。
提纲：
1.C没有采用新法规不代表新法规没有效用。毕竟没有人知道当初没有选择的道路会引向何方。这样，我们有充分的理由假设可能C要是采用了，可能情况比现在还好。（这点写的很好！）
2. 就算承认在C真的不好用，可是这并不能排除新法规在P市的影响，一方面两市不同的情况。另一方面，作者没有给出P市采用法规之前的具体情况，要是排除了其他原因，房价单纯的随着新法规的采用而增加的话，那么新法规的作用自然不可忽视（这点也很清晰。）
3．就算在CP都没有用，在M也不一定没有用。房价取决于很多方面，比如地价，地产税，交通情况，还有供求等等。很有可能M地的房价不高的原因是因为供过于求，那么在这种情况下削减供应还是可以提高价格的。
提纲的总体思路很清晰，我理一下这篇argu的结构：
作者通过在P和C两个城市是否实施严格的法律以及房价的平均情况，想证明法律对房价没有影响，这样显然是不对的，这个我们简单表示为 A------〉B, 显然没有直接关系，可以按照你的1，2 两点写；其次，就算我们承认严格的法律与房价没关系，不能证明在M处也没有效用。所以提纲写的很好。

Prior to accepting the author's recommendation（这里因为不是建议，所以换为conclusion更准确。） that new strict laws in limiting the construction of new buildings would have no effect on average housing prices in Maple City, the evidence presented in this argument requires an in-depth scrutiny from several aspects, by doing which, I find that the author seems to have unduly relied on the experience of Pine City and Chestnut City without accounting for other possibilities and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.（其实可以说成是不完全的比较）

To begin with, the author illogically presumes that no new laws are established to limit new building construction in Chestnut City indicates that the new laws would be no use at all. However, this might not be the case. After all, no one would exactly know where the path not taken would ultimately lead（这个我以前没见过，名言？）. In that case, we have sufficient reasons to assume that Chestnut City would become far better and the average housing prices would increase more sharply than its status quo, given that the new laws were employed. Hence, unless providing detailed information about the condition after the new laws are enforced in Chestnut（要使比较的结果有效，就必须是对应的项目比较，这点说明了比较不完全的问题。）, the author's assumption that the new laws are not useful cannot convince me at all.（这段写的挺好的。）

In addition, even assuming that new laws being adopted in Chestnut（这里表达有点问题 ，因为C处并没有实施任何法律。思路没有问题） do have no effect, it still cannot serve to exclude the new law's influence in Pine City. In fact, the author fails to recognize the inherent differences between Pine City and Chestnut City, say, environment, policies, the level prices, etc, all of which would probably affect the outcome of the new laws. Moreover, the author also offers no clear information about the condition of Pine City before the new laws were put into use there.（具体一点，可以在写一句：可以想象没有法律前房价很低，而且其他影响房价的因素没有任何变化，这样法律的作用就突现出来了。） Without that evidence, it is entirely possible that the average housing prices augment sharply since using the new laws if ruling out other possible factors that might have impact on the housing prices. Undoubtedly, if this is true, the function of the new laws cannot be overlooked.（这段的驳斥也不错，应该更加突出，甚至可以夸张一点的估计法律对于P的正面影响。）

Before coming to finish my analysis, we might as well turn our focus to the author's conclusion which unfairly suggests that the new law would not work in Maple City merely in consideration of the situation of Pine City and Chestnut City. However, we are not informed of any information about the rooted reason that contributes to the low housing prices in Maple City. As is known to all, the average housing prices depend on several dimensions, say, the land price, the property taxes, the condition of transportation around houses and also the condition of supply and demand in the market.（还有经济水平） It is entirely possible that the in Maple City the rooted reason for the low average housing prices is that they have so many buildings constructed that the supply has significantly surpassed the demand. Common sense informs us that regardless of other factors, the price can be enhanced by cutting down the supply. In this sense, the new laws which limit new building construction in Maple City is presumed to be a success provided that the main factor that determines price is supply and demand in the building construction market of Maple City.（这段的驳斥只是说了房价低的原因，还应该提及法律的实施说不定有正面影响，这样的话逻辑上就更完整了。）

To sum up, the argument is weakened by the flaws discussed above. Much work is needed before drawing a convincible conclusion; otherwise, the argument would be unfounded.
总体来看，思路清晰，句式精辟，逻辑较完整，很好！

[ 本帖最后由 lawrence1984 于 2006-2-21 13:09 编辑 ]

lawrence1984UID: 178326

关于结尾的问题，如果你见过范文是这样写，那么就这样写，如果没有，那就提出相应的改进意见，采用经典结尾吧！

[ 本帖最后由 lawrence1984 于 2006-2-21 13:09 编辑 ]