- UID
- 734214
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-3-10
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
The council of Maple County
, concerned about the county's becoming overdeveloped, is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. 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 county. Proponents of the measure note that Chestnut County established a similar measure ten years ago, and its housing prices have increased only modestly since. However, opponents of the measure note that Pine County 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 County.
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.
In this argument, the arguer concludes that if the council of maple country passes the restriction on existing farmland, the housing prices will increase significantly there. The conclusion is based on two phenomenon appeared in another two places showing that the similar restrictions resulted in the increase of housing price in pine country fifteen years ago, while the only modest increase in chestnut country ten years ago. At first glance, the conclusion seems somewhat to be intriguing. the argument is not logical persuasive, however, since it relies on the numerous shaky assumptions for which no evidence has been given.
To begin with, the arguer unfairly establishes the causal relationship between the fact of the implementation of the restriction and the result of the change of the housing price in the two regions. Obviously, the arguer fails to consider other possibilities that can also result in the same result. For example, in pine country, perhaps there are lots of employers to choose the house live in for the new factory established there after the implementation of the restriction. So the housing price increases naturally for the large demand without the enough supply. Unlike pine the country, the chestnut country does not have the similar things happened, so it will not necessarily lead to the increase of the housing price. Without accounting for these and other possibilities, the reasoning is bound to be fallacious.
in addition, even assuming the result of the change of the housing price is attributable to the implementation of the restriction, the arguments without justification assumes that the background conditions has remain same in the different periods. The conclusion is unwarranted because the things rarely remain same over extended periods of time. Perhaps, the restriction has been revoked after one year, so the supply of housing is abundant enough for the residents in the chestnut country. Or perhaps the lots of people there go to work outside the country; it also can reduce the need of the housing. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion.
Finally, granted the same background conditions have remained in the next years. the arguer commits a false analogy between these regions. The arguer unfairly assumes by the same means the maple country will achieve the same result as the pine country does. But the arguer overlooks the difference between the different areas. For instance, perhaps the maple country may have less people than the pine country have. And the housing here already be enough for the livers and no there no trends that the population here will increase. So the same action will not bring about the expected results as the maple country had happened. Additionally, according to the mere information we have not enough reason to believe in the increase of the housing prices.
In conclusion, the arguer claims that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County
is logically unsound. If the arguer has demonstrated the causal relationship between the proposal and the result in other regions, showed that the different areas have same circumstances, the conclusion would be substantially stronger. as it currently stands, there is litter reason to accepting what the arguer predicts. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-8-9 22:58:14
收藏
收藏
楼主
