GMAT作文范文及解析：校园住宅使用率
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。
1， 入住率低可能是因为学生人数减少等原因造成的
2， 同时减少供给和降低房费可能会抵消入住率提高而带来的收入提高效应而有余
3， 就算不会完全抵消仍然有其他原因影响收入例如说学生进入后的维修等等。
boosting rental maintenance oppressive seriousness trivailize
1， 忽略他因：单纯地说问题所在是rent. 但实际上可能有很多其他的因素：房子的condition, security, cleaning service，noisy surroundings等等。
2， 过去不能推广到未来：很可能变化了——比如enrollments of students have sharply increased。所以，很可能减少available的数量可能不是合适的做法。
3， 减少提供的房子，降低房租，很可能导致收入下降。
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.