AA038有第三个逻辑错误吗，请大家多多指教（文章已修改第三个批驳点）

38. The following appeared in the editorial section of a campus newspaper.
“Because occupancy rates for campus housing fell during the last academic year, so did housing revenues. To solve the problem, campus housing officials should reduce the number of available housing units, thereby increasing the occupancy rates. Also, to keep students from choosing to live off-campus, housing officials should lower the rents, thereby increasing demand.”

The conclusion approved in this argument is that the school should reduce the number of available housing units and lower the rents in order to increase the occupancy rates.The basis for the argument is that lower rents can lead to higher demand in living on campus.An additional explanation given in support of this  argument  is  that reduce the number of available housing units can result in the increase in the occupancy rates.At fist glance,the argument seems to be appealing in one way or anotkher.However ,we do not need to look very far to see how irrational this argument is.After a attentive analysis,we can cognize that this argument commits several logical mistakes that are addressed below.

In the first place,this argument rests on a gratuitous assumption  that reducing the number of available housing units can contribute to the increase of occupancy rates.However,the author provides no evidence to support to this argument.The arguer fails to take into account other facts that might contribute to the result that the occupancy rates will not increase.It is highly likely that most of students prefer living off-campus to living on-campus.It is also likely that the housing conditions provided by the housing officials are not good enough,so the students have to rent house outside campus.Any of these scenarios ,if true,would show that the decision made by the housing officials will not succedd.Therefore,this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

In the second place,the author unfairly assumes that the low rents can keep students from choosing to live off-campus.However ,the author does not provide us any information about that.Lack in such evidence,the conclusion is in question.Moerover,the author neglects that other facts may lead to the same conclusion,not just only reduce the rents. For example,the housing officals can make the conditions of the domitory better and better by providing plants in houses.Thus,unless the auther rule out  such posibility ,the argument is completely unfounded.

In the third place,the author fails to be thoughtful about  that it is contradictory to both  reduce the number of available housing units and  increasing the demand that more students want to live on campus.Because the greater  the number of the students who want to live on campus is , the more available housing units are in need.Moreover,the author agrees  to reduce the number of the available units ,however,the author does not indicate us for what purpose the unoccupated houses will be used .It is possible that the houses will leave ungoverned ,if so, those houses will be a great waste or lost to the housing officials.Furthermore ,the housing officials have to repair the houses though the houses are not in use.Therefore,unless the author rule out such possibility ,the conclusion drawn from the author is not well-established.

To conclude,since the author commits above mentioned logical mistakes and fails to consider the whole situation comprehensively ,his ideas should not be adopted.The author fails to provide adequate justification for the desicion.As it stands,the reasoning does not constitute a logical argument  in favor of the argument .To make this argument logically acceptable,the author would have to show more precise informaiton to support his claim that reducing the number of available housing units can contribute to the increase of occupancy rates.In addition to solidify the conclusion,the author should provide concrete evidence as well to demonstrate that he low rents can keep students from choosing to live off-campus.Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.

我想了半天，也没有想出第三个错误，大家帮忙看看这个可以吗？谢谢

请多多指教

不对~记错了~还是38题

我给过提纲的~看这帖：

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=26&ID=129343&replyID=&skin=0

你HIGHLISHT处的地方，个人感觉不是很好，略微有些偏题

你说已经搜索过了， 应该能搜到我上面给的那个链接...那怎么会没看到我的三个攻击点呢~

A ZA...

happy我太爱你了！！！

谢谢哦，不过我真的没有搜到，我直接搜的提纲连接，可能比较粗心，结果没找到

真的好感谢哦！！！

看到了，恩，happy你果然厉害！很不错的三个攻击点哦，比我强多了！向你学习！

In the third place,the author unfairly assumes that the increasing number of students who demand to live on-campus,can lead to the increase of the revenue.However ,the author does not indicate us any information about the case.Although the increase in demand may lead to more students began to live on-campus.Moreover,the author fails to take into account such factors that may lead to the opposite result.For example ,as more and more students begin  to live on-campus,the housing official have to spend much more money on house repairment or management of the students than ever before.As a result, the total expenditure is far more outweigh the total revenue.Therefore,without ruling such possibility ,the author can not assure us that the conclusion is well-founded.

按happy第三点写的，帮偶看下，你看这个第三点写的成麽？欢迎拍砖~~~~

欢迎大家多多指正批评~~~~~`