虽然有讨论，但还是请NN总结一下这个逻辑错误吧

xiaojianzhu

AA: B6

***B6. The following appeared in a letter from a part-owner of a small retail clothing chain to her business partner:

“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.”

行缘

不是NN, 试一下:

1. In the absence of information about their absolute prices before the upward trend of SH took place, the fact of the upward trend alone does not necessarily indicates that the retail space in SH is more expensive than a similar space in PG.

2. Even if the retail space in SH is more expensive than in PG, there is no guarantee that retail spaces in SH are now overpriced relative to those in PG.

3. The author assuems that the trend of past will continune in the future.

4. The author only focuses the factor of price to choose a retail space.

只想到这几点，希望有人给补充。

rio

同意

还是结合讨论总结帖看一下