AA074

bqu002

第一次写作文，30分钟很紧，模版忘了很多，请大家批评指证。按照这种水平大概能得多少分呢？万分感谢您的指点。

题目
Commercial real estate 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.

作文：
The author of the argument concludes that it would be in the retail clothing chain’s financial interest to buy a space in Palm Grove rather than in Sandida Heights. To strengthen this conclusion, the author provided the evidence of the price rise of the retail spaces in Sandida Heights in the past several years, during which the price of similar spaces in Palm Grove remained stable. Although the argument seems to be well grounded at first glance, its validity is questionable under close scrutiny.

Firstly, the author did not provide any useful explanations to the evidence cited. The paragraph did not address anything regarding the percentage of the price rise of the retail spaces in Sandida Heights, nor does it mention the retail space prices of the two regions several years ago. Without such information, it is irrational to compare the current prices of the retail spaces at the two regions. For example, maybe a space was selling for $100,000 in Sandida Heights a few years ago while a similar space was selling for $200,000 in Palm Grove at that time. So even though the price of the space in Sandida Heights increased by 20%, it is still much lower than the price of the space in Palm Grove. As a result, before such information regarding the evidence is provided, no conclusion drawn from the evidence is useful.

Secondly, the argument is based on the unverified assumption that the retail spaces in Sandida Heights are overpriced relative to those in Palm Grove. Even we grant that the prices of such spaces in Sandida are more expensive than the similar spaces in Palm Grove, the author failed to consider other factors such as the differences in the purchasing power and shopping habitats in the two regions. Any of these factors may provide a sensible explanation of the high retail price in Sandida Heights. Therefore, the argument cannot be considered valid because it is based upon such gratuitous assumption.

Finally, the author further made the strong assumed that purchasing a retail space in Sandida and purchasing a retail space in Pal Grove are mutually exclusive events. However, the author failed to provide any evidence to support such fundamental assumption. So there is no reason for us to believe that purchasing retail spaces in both places would not be in the clothing chain’s financial interest.

In conclusion, the argument is defective and doubtful in many aspects. To strengthen the argument, the author needs at least to provide more information to the evidence cited and show that the spaces in Sandida Heights are really overpriced after adjusting for purchasing power and shopping habitat differences. Only then, the author can show that the argument is more than a simple emotional appeal.