Argument 11. The council of Maple Country, concerned about the country’s becoming overdeveloped, is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the country. But the council is also concerned that such a restriction, by limiting the supply of new housing, could lead to significant increases in the price of housing in the country.
roponents of the measure note that Chestnut Country established a similar measure ten years ago, and its housing prices have increased only modestly since. However, opponents of the measure note that Pine Country adopted restrictions on the development of new residential housing fifteen years ago, and its housing prices have since more than doubled. The council currently predicts that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple Country.Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.(老G109)
Whether a prediction can serve as a good reference for the implementation of a policy really depends on its accuracy. In the light of the policy of prevention of the development of farmland, the Maple City (MC) council concerns the increasing in housing price as a potential result of this policy due to the limiting housing supply. Given the two analogies about Pine Country (PC) and Chestnut Country (CC) posted by the proponents and dissidents, the MC council hastily predicts that such measure will lead to a significant increase in the housing price without other convincing evidence. As a result of lacking rigorous testing, this argument is vulnerable and questionable, rife with many logical fallacies, leaving this prediction fairly uncertain and inaccurate for a good reference.
First off, the council considers the restriction on farmland in MC a sufficient condition for a limited supply for new housing, and, therefore, leading to a higher housing price. However, this syllogism is in fact lack of foundation. Will this policy sufficiently limit the housing supply? Seemingly no. Maybe MC can build higher buildings to hold more residents within an area, or modify the design of the housing for more residence. Moreover, even if there will be a limiting supply of new housing, will the housing price in this city definitely rise? Many factors may affect, after all, like the economic condition of the residences, city population condition and so forth. All the reasoning of this argument is narrowly founded on this basic premise assumption. Without these two questions nicely answered, the whole argument will make no sense.
Secondly, two related countries, PC and CC, are applied as an analogy to prove his prediction. However, I wonder whether the real situations within MC are similar enough to either or both of these two countries for a comparison. Given the only information that these two countries both implemented similar policy to limit the development of farmland, there simply exists no other evidence for a compatible analogy with MC. Maybe the economic situation in CC was good and the population was small 10 years ago, therefore the housing price failed to increase significantly. But is it the same in MC now? The writer fails to provide any information about that, like the economic situations, population, or other information about MC and CC, making this comparison blurring and meaningless. Similar situation to the PC case. This falsely applied analogy cannot serve as a good reference for a proof until sufficient information is provided for a fair comparison.
Finally, the prediction of an increasing housing price based on two intrinsically opposite cases obtained by the both sides of this issue makes no sense in fact. How does the writer dismiss all contentions on the uncertain effects of this policy to draw the conclusion of an increase in the housing price instead of no or unobvious change in housing price? Given the unwarranted reasoning and falsely applied analogy, there is simply no foundation for the writer to exclude the other side of this issue. I cannot help to wonder if there are other information concealed for his reasoning or his prediction is simply out of biases.
To sum up, the writer falsely builds a bridge between the farmland protection policy and the increasing housing price event by an unwarranted reasoning, applies false analogies for reference, and finally ignores the existing potential possibilities to reach a one-side conclusion. The questions discussed above are necessary to be solved for a sound conclusion. Otherwise, no conclusion can be found.