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

In this argument ,the writer of the letter concludes that the council of Maple County predicts that whether they passed the law for restrictions the housing prices will raise significantly. The writer states that the council is concerned about being overdeveloped and propose measure that would limit the development of existing farmland in the county. Furthermore , the writer assert that in Pine counry there was a alike restrictions which led to raise in housing prices .Unlike Pin county ,chestnut had the same experience but housing prices have increased not much .This argument defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the writer equates two country with two different time periods but gives no causal linkages to support her argument. She mentions that in Pine county housing prices have raise due to such restrictions but she provides no evidenced whatsoever that link increasing housing prices with the restrictions .The housing prices might went up due to other plausible reasons such as earthquake which destroyed the land excess demand to houses maybe the populations have increased and demand for houses doubled. Without taking these reasons into account the argument fails to convince by showing no causal linkages between houses and restrictions. On the other hand, the writer cites that chestnut country set up a similar rule ten years ago but there was no sharply increase in housing prices. The writer provides no supportive example or explainations to convince us. She does not take into account other plausible reasons might lead to this situation. Maybe the population has decreased during that period and demand for houses would not increased much. Consequently, it is impossible to pinpoint that a restrictions just itself can not be basis for decline or increase in housing prices in two different countries.Furthermore, the Writer makes no distinctions among period. In country pine they passed the law 15 years ago on th other hand in chestnut they experienced it 10 years ago.the writer neglects times and locations of two different countries.

Secondly , the writer notes that the council of country predicts that there will be significant increase in housing prices if they passed the law. However, the writer fails to provide evidence to support her argument, he asserts that there will be shortage in land which results increase in housing.but he does not take in to account other possible reasons. No one can ensure raise in housing prices, maybe there will be an economis crises and peoples intention to buy new houses would decrease.

In summary, the writer fails to establish causal linkages between restrictions in farmland and increasing housing prices.The evidence presented is extremely weak and narrowly focuses on just two country which can not be related to country .the writer does not provide any specific informations about these countries their locations or populations or industry soon so forth.for a stronger argument,the writer would need to directly put forth evidence associating housing prices with not only the restrictions but also throughout other areas of the world.