Argument109 哎，又没限时成功，继续努力！高频，期待互拍~~

@amy@UID：209096

题目
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."

翻译：
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。

**********************************************************
提纲
（1）错误地从Chestnut City没有采用规定价格也上涨的现象得出结论规定对Chestnut City无效。有可能采用了以后有效果。
（2）即使真的在Chestnut City无效果，不能说在Pine City也没效果。这个比较不合理，因为只是从表面上得出结论，没有进行深入分析。
（3）即使在Chestnut City和Pine City都没有效果，也不能得出在Maple City也没效果。

**********************************************************
字数：523 words
时间：45分钟
**********************************************************
正文
In this argument, the arguer is too hasty to conclude that the laws that limit new building construction will also have no effect on average housing prices if they are established in Maple City because he gets the conclusion only by observing the unreasonable compare between Pine City and Chestnut City. I will further point out his flaws in the following.

First of all, the arguer wrongly thinks that the laws have on effect in Chestnut City only according to the phenomenon that the average housing prices in Chestnut City still increase without establishing any laws. It is doubtless that there must be some reasons that cause the increase of average housing prices in Chestnut City during the past twenty years, however, how about the situation if Chestnut City also adopted the laws? The arguer does not study this assumption. It is totally possible that the increase is even much greater if the laws instead of other methods are established. So until strong evidence is provided, the conclusion that the laws have on effect in Chestnut City is not persuasive.

Secondly, even if the laws do have no effect to Chestnut City, it cannot say the laws are also useless for Pine City. Since the case of Pine City may be different with that of Chestnut City, so the effort of the laws in the two cities also maybe vary from each other. If other likely reasons which can cause the raise of average housing prices, have been excluded, then the laws is the most possible reason for the increase. For example, if Pine City does not try any other methods excepting the laws over the past 20 years, and inflation also does not occur there, and all the related facets, such as taxes, people’s incomes, environment, and the like, remain same as those 20 years before, then the only likely reason for the increase is the laws.

Last but not the least, granted that those laws have little uses to the increases of average housing prices in both Chestnut City and Pine City, it is not certain that they will also be helpless in Maple City. Maybe in Maple City the new buildings are provided so many that far beyond the needs of residents, then the competition between developers is very intense and the developers have to decrease the prices of the buildings in order to take back investments earlier. In this occasion, to establish the laws same as Pine City may be a good wise because according to the market rules, when supplies is shorter than needs, the prices will increase naturally. Thus, whether the laws do have no effect in Maple City is still open to doubt.

To sum up, the arguer is too cursory to make the conclusion because he only stays on the surface of the compare. Consequently, to make his conclusion more convincing, he has to take the facets discussed above into account, that is, to survey the genuine reason for the raise of average housing prices in Pine City, to make sure whether the laws can have effect in Maple City by analyzing the actual situation.

hfkltcUID：2137530

In this argument, the arguer is too hasty to conclude that the laws that limit new building construction will also have no effect on average housing prices if they are established in Maple City because he gets the conclusion only by observing the unreasonable compare between Pine City and Chestnut City. I will further point out his flaws in the following.

First of all, the arguer wrongly thinks that the laws have onno effect in Chestnut City （only） merely according to the phenomenon that the average housing prices in Chestnut City still increase without establishing （any） 改为such是否更科学，你也不知道Chestnut City有没有施行其他法律，或在laws后加限定词，对laws进行必要的说明 laws. It is doubtless that there must be some reasons that cause the increase of average housing prices in Chestnut City during the past twenty years 具体举一两个reasons，可能会更好, however, how about the situation if Chestnut City also adopted the laws? The arguer does not study this assumption. It is totally possible that the increase is even much greater if the laws instead of other （methods） possibilities are （established） practiced in reality. So until strong evidence is provided, the conclusion that the laws have on effect in Chestnut City is not persuasive. 题中并没有提到the laws have no effect in Chestnut City, 这是你自己的推论，你要驳倒的是So it is clear that laws limiting new construction have no effect on average housing prices，这才是最终的落脚点；我个人认为这一段还是应该从两个城市自身条件不同作为出发点

Secondly, even if the laws do have no effect to Chestnut City 还是上面的原因，可将Chestnut City 改为 Pine City, it cannot say the laws are also useless for Pine City. Since the case of Pine City may be different with that of Chestnut City, so the effort of the laws in the two cities also maybe may be also vary from each other. If other likely reasons which can cause the raise of average housing prices, have been excluded, then the laws is the most possible reason for the increase. For example, if Pine City does not try any other methods excepting the laws over the past 20 years, and inflation also does not occur there, and all the related facets, such as taxes, people’s incomes, environment, and the like, remain the same as those 20 years before, then the only likely reason for the increase is the laws. 这一段偶觉得很不错，清楚明了，还有具体的例子

Last but not the least, granted that those laws have little uses to the increases of average housing prices in both Chestnut City and Pine City, it is not certain that they will also be helpless of no use in Maple City. （Maybe in Maple City the new buildings are provided so many that far beyond the needs of residents） 可改为So many new buildings may be provided in Maple City that are far beyond the needs of residents, then the competition between developers is very intense and the developers have to decrease the prices of the buildings in order to take back investments earlier. In this occasion, to establish the laws the same as Pine City may be a good wise because according to the market rules, when supplies is shorter than needs, the prices will increase naturally. Thus, whether the laws do have no effect in Maple City is still open to doubt. 总觉得这一段和上一段说的是一个意思

To sum up, the arguer is too cursory to make the conclusion because he only stays on the surface of the compare. Consequently, to make his conclusion more convincing, he has to take the facets discussed above into account, that is, to survey the genuine reason for the raise of average housing prices in Pine City, to make sure whether the laws can have effect in Maple City by analyzing the actual situation.

rebeccavenUID：2140456

TOPIC: ARGUMENT17 - The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Walnut Grove town newspaper.

"Walnut Grove's town council has advocated switching from EZ Disposal (which has had the contract for trash collection services in Walnut Grove for the past ten years) to ABC Waste, because EZ recently raised its monthly fee from $2,000 to $2,500 a month, whereas ABC's fee is still $2,000. But the town council is mistaken; we should continue using EZ. EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. Moreover, EZ-which, like ABC, currently has a fleet of 20 trucks-has ordered additional trucks. Finally, EZ provides exceptional service: 80 percent of respondents to last year's town survey agreed that they were 'satisfied' with EZ's performance."
WORDS: 513          TIME: 0:50:00          DATE: 2006-2-23

In this argument, the author concludes that the advocating that Walnut Grove (WG) should switch from EZ Disposal to ABC Waste is mistaken. To support his opinion, he points out that EZ collects trash twice a week, while ABC collects only once. In addition, he presents that EZ currently has ordered additional trucks. Moreover, he also claims that EZ provides exceptional service. However, there exist several intermediate steps that one should take before jumping to the conclusion.

To begin with, the author shows that concerning the times of collecting trash, the number of EZ is as twice as that of ABC. So we should go on the contract with EZ. However, it is not necessarily the case. The number of collecting trash is not sufficient to demonstrate the high quality of any company. Because we do not know how much the trash is and whether we need the service or not. Perhaps, the trash in WG town is so limited that once a week is apt enough. Besides, more trucks do not certainly mean the improved productivity of EZ. The author fails to rule out other alternatives involving in the condition, such as although they bought more trucks, EZ is not intending to use them to supply collecting service. Or they will replace some of the original trucks with the new ones so that the whole number of the trucks in EZ is the same as that of ABC Company. Even if more trucks are indeed devoted in the collecting trash, it is still possible that ABC manages their service more efficiently with fewer trucks.

Furthermore, although the fee of EZ is $2500, while that of ABC is merely $2000, we cannot conclude which one is better before we consider the costs and awards of both companies. It is possible that higher fee does not provide better service as the author expects. So before the argument supplies more solid information on the correlation between the price and the service, I cannot make sweeping conclusion.

Moreover, the survey lacks of objective information demonstrating that it is not self-report. (The respondents answer the questions under some hints or according to certain expectations.) In addition, we should get the information on the specific number, background of the sample. And the author should guarantee the randomness of the selecting the sample. Even if all of these elements are considered and meet, an only one-year period is not long time frame for citizens to believe. Thus we must lengthen the time of the survey in order to render more valid outcomes.

Overall, at the first glance, the argument appears to be somehow plausible, however, further reflection reveals several important logical flaws. Before I make my final decision, the arguer must present more substantial information on the specific conditions of EZ and ABC, such as the cost and benefit, tax, transportation, selling, the quality of the employees and the individual services. Additionally, the argument also is supposed to reflect the realistic feedback of the residents of WG town by an objective survey and a statistical report. Otherwise, I can hardly be persuaded by the invalid and hasty conclusion as it stands.

[ 本帖最后由 rebeccaven 于 2006-2-23 22:58 编辑 ]

rebeccavenUID：2140456

提纲
（1）错误地从Chestnut City没有采用规定价格也上涨的现象得出结论规定对Chestnut City无效。有可能采用了以后有效果。
（2）即使真的在Chestnut City无效果，不能说在Pine City也没效果。这个比较不合理，因为只是从表面上得出结论，没有进行深入分析。
（3）即使在Chestnut City和Pine City都没有效果，也不能得出在Maple City也没效果。

**********************************************************
字数：523 words
时间：45分钟
**********************************************************
正文
In this argument, the arguer is too hasty to conclude that the laws that limit new building construction will also have no effect on average housing prices if they are established in Maple City because he gets the conclusion only by observing the unreasonable compare between Pine City and Chestnut City. I will further point out his flaws in the following.

First of all, the arguer wrongly thinks that the laws have on effect Chestnut City only according to the phenomenon that the average housing prices in Chestnut City still increase without establishing any laws. It is doubtless that there must be some reasons that cause the increase of average housing prices in Chestnut City during the past twenty years, however, how about the situation if Chestnut City also adopted the laws? The arguer does not study this assumption. It is totally possible that the increase is even much greater if the laws instead of other methods are established. So until strong evidence is provided, the conclusion that the laws have on effect in Chestnut City is not persuasive.

Secondly, even if the laws do have no effect to Chestnut City, it cannot say the laws are also useless for Pine City. Since the case of Pine City may be different with that of Chestnut City, so the effort of the laws in the two cities also maybe vary from each other. If other likely reasons which can cause the raise of average housing prices, have been excluded, then the laws is the most possible reason for the increase. For example, if Pine City does not try any other methods excepting the laws over the past 20 years, and inflation also does not occur there, and all the related facets, such as taxes, people’s incomes, environment, and the like, remain same as those 20 years before, then the only likely (能否换一个词， 重复多次了)  reason for the increase is the laws.

Last but not the least, granted that those laws have little uses to the increases of average housing prices in both Chestnut City and Pine City, it is not certain that they will also be helpless in Maple City. Maybe in Maple City the new buildings are provided so many that far beyond the needs of residents, then the competition between developers is very intense and the developers have to decrease the prices of the buildings in order to take back investments earlier. In this occasion, to establish the laws same （倒了）as Pine City may be a good wise because according to the market rules, when supplies is shorter than needs, the prices will increase naturally. Thus, whether the laws do have no effect in Maple City is still open to doubt.

To sum up, the arguer is too cursory to make the conclusion because he only stays on the surface of the compare. Consequently, to make his conclusion more convincing, he has to take the facets discussed above into account, that is, to survey the genuine reason for the raise of average housing prices in Pine City, and to make sure whether the laws can have effect in Maple City by analyzing the actual situation.
总的来说，结构挺好的，但是我读的时候总觉得你的语言怪怪的，说不上语法有太大的问题，但是句子结构不是太平衡。但是，45分写这么多，不少了，我也差不多。记时未果，以下是我的习作，望，互拍，谢！

@amy@UID：209096

呵呵，多谢楼上两位的修改~~~

cdc95117UID：190622

改的人真牛 我4月19考作文 感觉时间太长了 不知道怎么复习？

xuhaimengUID：2116891

不错学习一下