原始寂静：
V1(BY: wdcwcd) The following appeared in the editorial section of a campus newspaper.“Because occupancy rates for campus housing fell during the last academic year, so did housing revenues. To solve the problem, campus housing officials should reduce the number of available housing units, thereby increasing the occupancy rates. Also, to keep students from choosing to live off-campus, housing officials should lower the rents, thereby increasing demand.”
校园报纸的社论：
因为校园住宅的使用率在过去的学年中下降了，住宅收入也下降了。为了解决这个问题，校园住宅办公室应该减少可使用的住宅单元，从而增加使用率。同样的，为了不让学生选择住在校外，住宅办公室应该降低租金来扩大需求。
这真的是狗主提供的 -_-!!!
原题:
The following appeared in the editorial section of a campus newspaper:
“Because occupancy rates for campus housing fell during the last academic year, so did housing revenues. To solve the problem, campus housing officials should reduce the number of available housing units, thereby increasing the occupancy rates. Also, to keep students from choosing to live off-campus, housing officials should lower the rents, thereby increasing demand.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
校园报纸的社论：
因为校园住宅的使用率在过去的学年中下降了，住宅收入也下降了。为了解决这个问题，校园住宅办公室应该减少可使用的住宅单元，从而增加使用率。同样的，为了不让学生选择住在校外，住宅办公室应该降低租金来扩大需求。
参考思路：
1.入住率和房租收入非因果关系(房租收入下降也可能是赶上经济衰退租房市场低迷、学生招收人数减少等)
2.降低房租不一定能吸引更多的学生(价格不是唯一因素，存在其他因素如住宿条件、学校管制太严等)
3.提高入住率不一定能提高收入(尤其是在利用降低房租这个手段时，增加的入住量不一定能弥补降低房租带来的损失)
4.False causal relationship
5.Gratuitous assumption：
6.All things are equal:
参考范文：
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 author’s 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.
