看下这篇吧 谢谢。The passage concludes that the housing revenues will stop declining if campus housing officials reduce the number of available housing units, and keep students from living off campus. Here, however, the author omits many important aspects that need to be addressed to substantiate the argument, leaving the argument vulnerable and unconvincing. First off, the author does not address if there is a connection between a low occupancy rate and housing revenues. A low overall occupancy rate is not necessary related to a low housing revenue. For example, a low overall occupancy which has a high occupancy rate in the more expensive housing can generate more revenues than a high occupancy rate which has a low occupancy rate in the more expensive housing. Moreover, reducing the number of available units does not guarantee an increase in the occupancy rates. The author fails to address many other reasons that may cause a low occupancy rate, reasons that can not be solved by simply reduce the available housing units, such as regulation that cuts off the power after 11 pm, or lack of air conditioning and other facilities. Leaving these issues unaddressed makes the argument vulnerable. Also, lowering the rents also may not deliver intended outcome, which is keeping students from living off-campus and increasing demand. Many students chose to live off-campus did not because of financial reasons, but because they want to get close to their families or leave more free rooms to themselves. Finally, even the occupancy rates increased and campus housing demand increase, the intended revenues increase is still very vulnerable. The revenues are made up by units*price. What the plan decreases in price the revenues must be made up for in units. The author fails to consider the possibility that a sharp decrease in rent price with a modest increase in demand may, in fact, lead to a loss in revenues.

看下这篇吧 谢谢。The passage concludes that the housing revenues will stop declining if campus housing officials reduce the number of available housing units, and keep students from living off campus. Here, however, the author omits many important aspects that need to be addressed to substantiate the argument, leaving the argument vulnerable and unconvincing. First off, the author does not address if there is a connection between a low occupancy rate and housing revenues. A low overall occupancy rate is not necessary related to a low housing revenue. For example, a low overall occupancy which has a high occupancy rate in the more expensive housing can generate more revenues than a high occupancy rate which has a low occupancy rate in the more expensive housing. Moreover, reducing the number of available units does not guarantee an increase in the occupancy rates. The author fails to address many other reasons that may cause a low occupancy rate, reasons that can not be solved by simply reduce the available housing units, such as regulation that cuts off the power after 11 pm, or lack of air conditioning and other facilities. Leaving these issues unaddressed makes the argument vulnerable. Also, lowering the rents also may not deliver intended outcome, which is keeping students from living off-campus and increasing demand. Many students chose to live off-campus did not because of financial reasons, but because they want to get close to their families or leave more free rooms to themselves. Finally, even the occupancy rates increased and campus housing demand increase, the intended revenues increase is still very vulnerable. The revenues are made up by units*price. What the plan decreases in price the revenues must be made up for in units. The author fails to consider the possibility that a sharp decrease in rent price with a modest increase in demand may, in fact, lead to a loss in revenues.