Argument109 [G流涌进小组作文] 写的累啊，证明是比证明不是难多了。

weleeqianUID: 2286332

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: 483         TIME: 一个下午         DATE: 2007-3-19

1.         PC和CC之间的比较较少，无法得出结论房价和限制之间无关系。
2.         即使有关系，那也是20年前的事情了，不一定现在适用。
3.         MC城市的信息缺乏，不可知上述结论是否可以运用到MC上。

In this argument, the author's suggestion that no laws should be established in Maple City to limit new building construction is based on his conclusion that such laws have no effect on average housing price in Pine City and Chestnut City. Convincing as it seems at first sight, the argument flaws in several facets as discussed below.

First and foremost, the author commits a fallacy of incomplete comparison between Pine and Chestnut when he concludes the laws limiting new construction are ineffective on average housing prices. The only comparison between these two cities in this argument is that their sizes are similar. Admittedly, Chestnut, with no restriction on new building construction, has experienced the same increase in average housing price as Pine has during the past 20 years, but the only comparison that the sizes of these two cities are similar is not enough to ensure that Pine’s average housing prices should have risen as much as Chestnut’s have without the once established strict laws limiting construction. It is possible that Pine City has a rather small population comparing with that of Chestnut. For example, Pine has only 5,000 residents, while Chestnut’s population goes beyond 25,000. In this case, if the number of new buildings in Pine is not controlled and exceeds the demands, will the housing prices be so high as today？The author obviously ignores these possibilities that would undermine the reliability of his conclusion.

Besides, twenty years may be a time long enough to change things wholly. Even if such laws on new building constructions have no effect on the average housing prices during the past twenty years, it is not necessarily the case now. Possibilities exist that the current buildings in Pine are already sufficient after twenty years construction, and then more new buildings will not increase the housing prices but decline them. Hence, the conclusion that laws limiting new building constructions have no effect on average housing prices may not be applicable in the future.

Finally, granted that the laws on new construction are inefficient on the housing prices in Pine and Chestnut, we cannot ensure that such measure would have no effect in Maple City. In fact, the author does not give any of his analyses on the conditions of Maple, Pine and Chestnut. Is Maple as large as Pine and Chestnut in size? Is the population in Maple close to that in Pine or Chestnut? Or is the location of Maple comparable with Pine and Chestnut? Without ruling out these potential dissimilarities, the author cannot convince me that laws on new building construction have no effect on average housing prices in Maple City.

In sum, more detailed information about Pine and Chestnut City is needed to support the author’s conclusion that laws on new building construction are ineffective. Also the author should give more analyses on whether this conclusion could be applied to Maple City.