2. 职称英语
  3. The council of Maple County, concerned about the county’s becoming overdeveloped

The council of Maple County, concerned about the county’s becoming overdeveloped

游客2024-01-12  6
问题 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.
选项
答案     The council of Maple County is considering a policy proposal that would prohibit the development of the farmland in the county. Within the Maple County council opinions are divided on this subject. On one hand, opponents who fear that limited supply of new houses will cause a significant rise in the housing prices in Maple County argue that a similar policy adopted in Pine County 15 years ago led to the doubling of housing prices there. On the other hand, proponents of this policy shrug off such concerns, citing the case of Chestnut County where similar development restriction ten years ago only led to a modest increase in housing prices. Although currently the council’s view leans towards the opponents and posits that if the proposed measure is passed and enacted, it will lead to a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County, we cannot fully evaluate whether such a prediction is true, unless some critical questions about the three counties are fully addressed.
    To begin with, we need to take a closer look at the arguments made by each side of the debate. The opponents use the case of Pine County to demonstrate that the policy is capable of significantly increasing the housing prices. Here, a critical question is whether such a policy 15 years ago was truly responsible for the Pine County’s skyrocketing housing prices. In the opponents’ lines of reasoning, a causal link is implied but not fully supported by additional evidence. Hence, some other factors might also exist. For instance, could it be the case that Pine County was experiencing a massive influx of immigrants that caused the housing demand to spike? If there were other factors potentially at play in the housing market 15 years ago, the council cannot rely on the case of Pine County to infer the future housing landscape here at Maple County. Conversely, if the opponents of the policy can convincingly rule out other possibilities, their claim on the effect of the proposed measure will be strengthened.
    Similarly, to evaluate the case of Chestnut County quoted by the proponents of the measure of restricting farmland conversion, we need to ask if Chestnut’s government implemented any other measures to keep the land supply to housing development stable. Unlike the case of Pine County, Chestnut County’s housing price only increased modestly after the implementation of such restriction. Here, one may reasonably question whether Chestnut County provided other types of land for real estate development to keep the housing prices stable. If, for example, Chestnut County had a large industrial land and converted it for housing development, the supply of housing could still catch up with the demand. In this scenario, Chestnut County’s modest housing price increase cannot be credibly used to indicate Maple County could also avoid a significant increase in housing prices. However, it might also be the case that Chestnut County implemented no other policy. The housing price was indeed insensitive to the farmland conversion restriction, which could make the proponents’ case stronger.
    Next, let’s acknowledge for a moment that for whatever reasons, the same policy triggered a doubling housing price in Pine County and had little effect in Chestnut County. One important question that seems to be ignored by the council members is that whether Maple County is comparable to either of the two aforementioned counties. If Maple County more closely resemble the socioeconomic structure of Pine County, perhaps a drastic increase in housing price can be expected, as the council currently predicts. Yet, it could well be the other way around: Chestnut County is a better analog of Maple County, so the proposed measure would not lead to a large increase in housing prices, contrary to the leading prediction now. A third possibility also exists. That is, Maple County could neither resemble Pine County nor be similar to Chestnut County. In this case, the peculiarities of Maple County demand a more thorough investigation on effect of the proposed land restriction on housing prices. Until such an investigation is carried out, we cannot predict whether the Maple County housing prices will go up significantly or not.
    To sum up, even though the same policy had seemingly different consequences in two Counties, its projected effect on the Maple County housing market remains to be seen. The council needs to not only consider the specific questions about the Pine County and Chestnut County but also answer if Maple County is similar to any of those two. (744 words)
解析     本文是题库当中非常特别的题目之一，原因在于作者不仅给出了自己支持的观点，也提出了反对的观点(有一点像Issue当中的“敌方观点”)。这对于Argument通常一边倒的论证而言可以说是颠覆性的。如果我们总结一下题目的逻辑框架，不难看出它的核心就是围绕Pine County和Chestnut County两地进行分析：
    15年前Pine的政策导致房价翻倍+但是10年前Chestnut的政策只导致房价少量上涨→Maple议会目前认为：如果也采取类似政策，房价会暴涨
    乍看之下这道题目有点让人不知所措，如果说Pine County的房价翻倍不一定能够推导出Maple County的房价也会暴涨比较好理解，我们要如何面对Chestnut County房价没有上涨的这一信息呢?为此，有的同学认为我们可以“借力打力”，把这一信息当作我们可以利用的反例，拿来攻击作者的结论。可惜的是，这种做法是错误的。因为当我们用Chestnut County的例子反驳作者的观点时，其实我们就在不知不觉中站在了作者的对立面。试想一下，作者的结论不一定对，代表作者的结论一定错吗?或者说我们写Argument的目的是证明作者错误吗?
    以上两个问题答案都是否定的，对于本文我们正确的态度应该是：目前的结论尚不明确，房价既有可能上涨，也有可能不变，而现在作者所呈现的两组证据并不能很好地帮助我们判断结果究竟是哪种情况。想清楚这一点之后，Chestnut County的例子我们就很好处理了：首先Chestnut County房价未上涨不一定代表了政策对于房价没有效果，因为可能当地还发生了一些别的变化。第二，就算Chestnut County的房价变化真的意味着限制开发令对于Chestnut房价没有影响，我们也不清楚Chestnut的案例能否推广到Maple County来。总之，作者所举的Pine County和Chestnut County两个地方的例子其实都不一定能足够支撑任何一方的结论，最后政令会不会引起Maple County的房价变化我们只能说不知道。注意这里的态度是“不知道”，而非“作者的结论不正确”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3356906.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)