本月JJ,求思路

27．The following appeared in a letter from a part-owner of a small retail clothing chain to her business partner:

“Commercial real prices have been rising steadily in the Sandida
                    Heights neighborhood for several years, while the prices in the adjacent neighborhood of Palm Grove have remained the same. It seems obvious, then, that a retail space in Sandida
                    Heights must now be much more expensive than a similar space in Palm Grove, which was not the case several years ago. So, it appears that retail spaces in Sandida
                    Heights are now overpriced relative to those in Palm Grove. Therefore, it would be in our financial interest to purchase a retail space in Palm Grove rather than in Sandida
                    Heights.”

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

大家能不能讨论一下这个题,或者给小妹个思路.......

我是这么想的：

1. Confusion between a change in a quantity and the value of that quantity (the real estate prices between the two neighborhoods)

2. Confusion between the general case and a specific instant (the real estate prices as a whole and the purchase cost of a particular location)

3. Single-sided reasoning (judged the profitiability solely on RE cost)

1 Statistics:

  The author fail to mention the original prices of these two place,

2 Causality:

  finacial interest is attributable to the cost of commecial real estate.