Argument 11求狠狠狠狠抽

小小游儿

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



写作



In this argument, the arguer predicts that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County. To support the prediction, the conclusion is based on the mere fact that Pine County adopted restrictions on the development of new residential housing fifteen years ago, and its housing prices have since more than doubled. In addition, the arguer reason that Chestnut County established a similar measure ten years ago, and its housing prices have increased only modestly since.



The major problem with this argument is that it is unreasonable to consider limitation on house supply would definitely result in the significant increase in house price. The price can be decided by many factors such as the local economy development and the local population density. Even if the restriction can result in the increase in house price, it is entirely possible that the increase price of house is a part of normal trend. The arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between limitation on house supply and the increase in house price.



Another flaw that weakens this argument is the arguer presents a false analogy which has gave birth to the totally different conclusions. The arguer fails to rule out the specific condition of Chestnut County and Pine County, such as macro-economic environment, supply and demand in housing of the two countries, demographic structure and living conditions of local countrymen. In short, lacking evidence that conditions in the two countries are relevantly similar, the arguer cannot convince me that they are comparable.



Even if these factors can be ignores, it is equally possible that average price in Pine country is low enough, and the sharp increase of the price of housing has nothing to do with this restriction. while it is true that the restrictions on the development of new residential housing is responsible for the roaring high price in Pine County fifteen years ago, this is not true that it will happen in Maple country today. Unless the author provide better evidence to justify the situation in County Pine fifteen years ago is similar to that in County Maple today, there is a good chance the two countries are incomparable.



In addition, the arguer ignores other measures can also avoid the county’s becoming overdeveloped besides limiting the supply of new housing, such as developing tourism industry, blossoming the economics of electronic commerce, and prospering education. These measures can both develop the local economy and prevent the development of existing farmland in the country.Without better evidence providing, I have good reason to doubt the restriction’s necessity.



To sum up, the arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning, neither of which is dispensable for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.



关于最后一个驳论点,我有一些质疑,它是写作5.5给出的.但是题目中的结论是如果提议通过,Maple的房屋价格将大幅度上涨. 而最后一个驳论点我感觉与结论有点远,政府为了防止overdeveloped, 所以实行restriction,而restriction的结果可能是房价上涨.而最后一个驳论点说,other possibilities可防止overdeveloped. 对于这样写是否有什么不合理的呢

由于这个题目涉及了C,P,M的三方对比,我逻辑有点混乱,还请大家帮忙给顺顺

竹林中人

这么说是没离题的，因为题目中的建议的目的就是为了不让过度开发，限制土地是一方面，其他的也可以

小小游儿

砸吧,竹林,我还能忍受

fd890831

楼主没按instruction写啊～～

小小游儿

instruction不是预测和立论有哪些问题吗/详细给我指一下,我好修改,谢谢喽

小小游儿

关于这个argu,三方比较,而且还有两方观点不一致,怎么写比较好呢?