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 argument conclude that the council predicts that the proposed measure, that is, it will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County, if passed. It is based on the premises that Chestnut County established a similar measure ten years ago with modest increase on housing price, and that Pine County adopted restrictions on the development of new residential housing fifteen years ago, and it double the housing prices. Although it may be true, it is logically flawed and full of missing explanation. So many questions are needed to be asked, as following paragraphs.

First, on the basis that the whole circomstance of Pine County fifteen years ago is the same as that of Maple County now, do the two policy, one for prohibition of the development of existing farmland and the other for limits on the development of new residential housing, have the same effect? If they do, then, under the assumption we make, the concern of the opponents are certified. As a result, the final prediction is likely to be right. However, if the difference of the two strategies are too large to have the same effect, the final conclusion will be wrong. The foresight is false and the possible outcome of the ban is indefinite.

Second, why the situations of the two county, Pine County and Maple County, in different time, are the same? If it is as in many cases in history, negligible changes allowed regarding to different time and geography, then the comparison may be qualified. In addition, just as the two policy exacuated in two distinct cities respectively have same impact, the final prognostication is testified. Despite that, there are no indications that the two situations are the same. For the sake of caprise of our society, the dissimilarities are possible, resulting the conclusion be incorrect.

Third, why the claim proposed by the proponents can't be applied on Maple County? Maybe on the account of different time, or on the strength of diverse disposition occupied by the two people of the two counties, the declaration is valueless, leading to the inference. In spite of that, no evidence is provided to confirm this statement. The break is needed to be fixed in order to make the council make the right decision.

In the end, the argument is rather weak. If answers to the questions mentioned above are given, this argument will be greatly strengthen, Therefore, without further facts, it is hard to be accepted, and the members in the council of Maple County ahould be wise not to jump to that prediciton.