求一棒子打醒。

starrr91

Argu11

  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 council predicts that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple Country. To support this conclusion, the proponents point out that Chestnut Country adopt a similar measure ten years ago ,and its housing prices increased slightly, on the contrary, Pine Country has its housing prices double since they take the restrictions on the development of new residential housing fifteen years ago. This argument is well-presented but far-fetched, for several reasons, this argument fails to provide adequate support for the prediction.

  In the first place, either the proponents or the opponents commit the fallacy of “false analogy”. The most apparent deficiency is that the argument rests on the assumption that Maple City is analogous to Chestnut Country and Pine Country in all aspects, which is absolutely weak.
 To start with, the situations cited in the argument, that is, the housing prices of Pine Country increased slightly as well as of Chestnut Country doubled, was happened in different time period. The variation of prices occurred ten years ago in Chestnut while fifteen years ago in Pine. As time going by, there will be differences in many aspects. There is possibility, which might exist rationally, that the housing price of these two counties are all decrease after adopting the measures mentioned above.
 Secondly, comparison among Maple , Pine and Chestnut is not valid, because we all know that two countries could differ from a large amount of aspects such as locations, weather, natural resources and so on, which may definitely effect not only the economy but the culture here. So taking Chestnut and Pine as references to predict the housing price in Maple is not tenable.
 Thirdly, the council fails to establish the causal relationship between the prices-increase and measure-adopted. The housing prices in Pine and Chestnut might be low initially, there are many factors that contribute to the price increasing, such as the large amount of external population or some other politic measures leads to the increase. Pursuing this line of reasoning, it seems to be the author’s responsibility to list more evidence to elucidate the similarity of Maple and the two countries mentioned above. If not, no basis exist for the comparison.
 In the second place, even if the flaws cited above is worked out by some ensuing evidence, a critical problem still remains that the assumption that limitation on house supply could definitely results in the significant increase in housing prices is unreasonable. The society is a whole system, a phenomenon cannot appears only because one factor, well, this is the case with housing price. Local economy development as well as the growth of population can also effect the level of prices. Thus supply is just part of those factors, so we cannot take the relationship between supply and price as causal and result for granted. Other than the author provides some evidence to substantiate that it is the limitation of housing supply that leads to the increasing of housing prices, or we cannot predict that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County.

 In a nutshell, it seems precipitous for the author to jump to the conclusion based on a series of problematic premise. This prediction is based on a false analogy, it fails to elucidate that the Maple with Chestnut and Pine is analogous to make comparison. What’s more it only take a little part of effective factors into account and overlooks other crux elements in the variation of housing prices. To make this prediction more plausible, the author should come to grips with the questions mentioned above. Only by enriching the evidence of bolstering the argument could the author put a persuasive prediction.

竹林中人

中间那段太长了，不知道是写成这样的，还是没有编辑，这样有点让读者不舒服。另外这个题，给出的信息有限，感觉不怎么好写

lukebrehm

Very good response but you must remember these are counties NOT countries! Thus it wouldn't be as big of a difference with statistics....  think i need to read it again, because your writing is very elegant.

gchq228

我觉得，整体结构还很不错，很值得学习，我也是第一刚开始练习argument，从你这里学到了很多。我的QQ380680110,希望相互交流一下，

lwx27

argument 11纠结了好久，感谢LZ的好文，语言很棒，也给我提供了些新思路
把自己的文章也贴上来共勉。
In this argument, the council predicts that the proposed measure of preventing the development of existing farmland, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County. The argument and prediction of the council is unwarranted due to several critical flaws.
To begin with, the council concerns that such a restriction on the development of existing farmland in the county would limit the supply of the new housing and thus lead to significant increases in the price of housing in the county. The reasoning line appears plausible, but is it necessary that the restriction on the development of existing farmland results in limiting the supply of new housing? If exit housing could be renovated and updated to accommodate more residents, residents’ demand for new housing could be met. Since by adopting such kinds of renovation project, the market can continue to supply new housing, the claim that preventing the development of existing farmland would limit the supply of new housing is unpersuasive. The opponents of the measure cited the situation of Pine County which adopted restrictions on the development of new residential housing rather than preventing the development of existing farmland. Since restrictions on the development of new residential housing could limit the supply of new housing while restrictions on the development of existing farmland would not necessarily lead to such limiting, the opinion of the opponents is unwarranted.
Moreover, even assuming that such restriction on the development of existing farmland could limit the supply of new housing, it not necessarily follows that such limiting could lead to increases in the price of housing in the county. Is the supply of housing the only decisive factor of the price of housing in a county? Obviously, such assumption is week. The price of housing could be affected by so many factors, such as location, climate, demographic structure residents’ living conditions and purchase power, that only considering one of those factors is ill-advised. Perhaps although the supply of new housing is limited by such a restriction, the demand for new housing also declines due to mass emigration of local residents in the county. In this case, it’s not surprising that housing prices would also decline after implementing of the proposed measure. The council of Maple County would benefit from considering other factors affecting housing prices other than the supply of new housing.
Finally, both proponents and opponents of the measure commit a false analogy fallacy. Are the Maple county and Chestnut County/ Chestnut County comparable at every respect in terms of factors affecting housing prices? Just as discussed above, the council fails to take into account other factors other than implementing measure. Even the measure of Pine County, that restrict the development of new residential housing, is not the same as the measures purposed by the council of Maple County that would prevent the development of existing farmland. As discussed in the second paragraph, prevention of the development of existing farmland would not necessarily result in the restrictions on the development of new residential housing. Furthermore, note that proponents discuss the situation of Chestnut County ten years ago, proponents discuss the situation of Chestnut County fifteen years ago, while the council discuss the situation of Maple County now. Valid comparison requires that all aspects in there different time period are the same, which is obviously absurd.
In summarily, the council’s prediction is unpersuasive due to those unwarranted assumptions mentioned above. To bolster it, the council must carefully consider questions discussed above and provide more evidence.

starrr91

谢谢点评.
中间那段分了3个点来写的.应该都分出来.但是怕段数太多..
个人感觉还是有点乱.
写之前没有列提纲.
有思路就顺着写下去了.
不知道在逻辑方面有没有问题.?

starrr91

thx for your opinion..
we can talk about it more by QQ.
^^