GMAT考试写作指导：Argument范文三二

　　38. The author of this article argues that, to reverse declining revenues from campus

　　housing rentals, campus housing officials should decrease the number of available

　　housing units and reduce rent prices on the units. The authors line of reasoning is that

　　fewer available units will limit supply while lower rents will increase demand, thereby

　　improving overall occupancy rates, and that the resulting increase in occupancy rates

　　will, in turn, boost revenues for the campus. This reasoning is unconvincing for several

　　reasons.

　　To begin with, the author assumes that boosting occupancy rates will improve

　　revenues. All other factors remaining unchanged, this would be the case. However, the

　　author proposes reducing both the supply of units and their rental prices. Both of these

　　actions would tend to reduce revenues. The author provides no evidence that the

　　revenue-enhancing effect of a higher occupancy rate will exceed the revenue-decreasing

　　effect of reduced supply and price. Without such evidence, the argument is

　　unconvincing.

　　Secondly, the author assumes that lowering rents will lead to higher revenues by

　　increasing demand. However, it is possible that demand would decrease, depending on

　　the extent of the rent reduction as well as other factors―such as overall enrollment and

　　the supply and relative cost of off-campus housing. Moreover, even if demand increases

　　by lowering rents, revenues will not necessarily increase as a result. Other factors, such

　　as maintenance and other costs of providing campus housing units and the reduced

　　supply of rental units might contribute to a net decrease in revenue.

　　Thirdly, in asserting that lowering rental rates will increase demand, the author

　　assumes that current rental rates are causing low demand. However, low demand for

　　student housing could be a function of other factors. For instance, the student housing

　　units may be old and poorly maintained. Perhaps students find the campus housing rules

　　oppressive, and therefore prefer to live off-campus; or perhaps enrollments are down

　　generally, affecting campus housing occupancy.

　　In conclusion, the author of this editorial has not argued effectively for a decrease

　　in the number of available campus housing units and a reduction in rental rates for those

　　units. To strengthen the argument, the author must show that a rent reduction will

　　actually increase demand, and that the revenue-enhancing effect of greater demand will

　　outweigh the revenue-reducing effect of a smaller supply and of lower rental rates.