新GRE Argument11 求拍啊！3G 火烧眉毛了...

雪宜

The prediction that by passing the proposed measure that would prevent the development of farmland housing prices in Maple County will surely rise remarkably, at the first glance, seems convincing. However, further reflection reveals that there are still several questions regarding to the variety of market conditions, the real contributor of the price change and the differences between farmland and residential housing that should be answered in order to substantiate this prediction.

In the first place, the author assumes without justification that the housing markets in both Chestnut Count since ten years ago and Pine County since fifteen years ago remain the same. The assumption is obviously unfounded because things rarely remain the same over extended period of time. If there has been a myriad of speculators in the housing markets since these two counties released the measures, there are possibilities that it is those speculators who are responsible for the price increasing not the restrictions. If house consumers return rational now, there is no sound reason for the price rising. While the market conditions are the same as the time when those two counties release their measure, the author’s prediction is still far-fetched since the different circumstances between theses three counties are still exist. When a large number of people live in relative small counties, a slightly restriction of land may exertsignificant influences on housing supply, which are highly possible to give rise to the price boost, exactly like what happened in Chestnut County and Pine County . Nevertheless, it may not be the case in Maple County. The housing price is likely to keep stable when there is far more than enough land to accommodate the citizens in Maple County. Therefore, without ruling out the potential differences between present Maple County, the Chestnut County since ten years ago, and Pine County since fifteen years ago, it is unwarranted to postulate that the price in Maple county will increases like Chestnut Count, let alone increase significantly like Pine County.

Another problem that may weaken the logic of this argument is that building on the implication that the whole market conditions are the same in the different time and different areas, the author still need to answer whether the restrictions in Chestnut County and Pine County rather than other factors lead to the price change. As we all know, the sequence of the evens, in itself, does not suffice to prove that the earlier incident cause the later. Therefore, based on the fact that the promulgation of the restriction occurred before the price changes we are not able to fairly conclude that the land restrictions serve to the price boost. It is highly possible that Chestnut County and Pine Count have suffered inflation since that time and things are especially worse in Pine County, which results that both of them have experienced a housing price increase and an even more significant increase in Pine County. To lend the argument a credible hand, it is indispensable to find out whether the restrictions are the real contributor to the price change.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out that conceding that all the problem above can be ignored for time being, there is no way to illustrate that the restriction of existing farmland can have the same effect on the house pricing as the residential housing restriction. By preventing the overdevelopment of new residential housing, the housing supply can be influenced directly, while things are different when we come to the farmland restriction. There is likelihood that although the farmland is limited for consumers which result in an increase in farmland price, the housing price, on the other hand, remains the same since there is still enormous space for housing. More evidences about the direct connection between the space for farmland and the price of houses are required so that the prediction can be more reasonable.

To sum up, the argument that the restriction of farmland in Maple County will lead to a price boost in housing may be kind of cogent. Before prediction that we will witness a remarkable housing price increasing after that measure is reached, however, the questions mentioned above should have be considered more thoughtfully. If the author had answered those questions, the prediction would have been more persuasive.

雪宜

题目忘记贴了！！！
Argument 11:
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.

竹林中人

看了，有下面几点感受：
1.语言功底很好，不过建议在写长句的时候间杂着写些短句，给人一种错落有致的感觉。
2.质疑点都写得很好，分析论证不错，建议最好每一段不要写得那么长，如果可以的话，分段，每段最好不要超过五行，这样读者读起来也感觉很舒服。
3.文章以后可以更放开更大胆地写，不要拘泥于别人的范文或者模板。
加油！

雪宜

恩，有道理，看着是有点烦。    嘻嘻，谢谢！！
还有之前看你的 官方范文 收获很大，谢谢！！