argument2 请大家拍砖，有拍必回

davidgdwUID: 145321

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting."

提纲：

1.  the arguer makes a "after this, therefore because of this" mistake.

2.  a false analogy between the Brookville community and Dearhaven Arces.

3. Lack of an analysis and comparison of other possible solutions.

正文：

In this argument, the arguer recommends all homeowners in Ceerhaven Acres adopt own set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting to raise property values in local area. To support the recommendation, the arguer points out that the nearby Brookville community adopted such kind of restrictions seven years ago and their property values raised. It seems convincing at the first glance, however, a few critical flaws exist under scrutinize.

In the first place, the arguer makes a “after this, therefore because of this” by assuming a cause relationship between the restrictions on landscaping and colors and the raise of property value. The arguer neglects lots of other possible determinant factors. For example, the city economy level has experienced increase in the past seven years thus the property value of the entire city has been raised. It is still possible that lots of big companies have chosen Brookville community as their location because of the transport advantage of it. There is no evidence that the regulations have played positive role in the raise of Brookville’s property value. It is quite possible that the property value could had raised to a higher level if without those regulations on landscaping and colors.

In the second place, it is hasty to go to the conclusion that Deerhaven Acres adopt similar set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting, even if the causal relationship between the regulation and raise of property value is true in Brookville community. Firstly, the regulation of Brookville is adopted seven years ago, there is no guarantee that that scheme will still work well now. Secondly, the outside environment, house structure could be quite different between these two communities. Maybe most of the buildings in Brookville communities are apartments, while houses in Deerhaven Acres are comprised of various structures and size. The accordance in the former does make some beauty sometimes, while a little house with large garden could be a little ridiculous, the arguer provides no information about that. Finally, a compultory regulation may cause some residents pursuit for freedom and uniqueness choose other communities to reside, the property value could experience a decline rather than raise.

Last but not least, the arguer refers to no other solutions to raise the property value of Deerhaven in the recommendation. As we know, there are lots of other methods to increase the property value of certain area, such as appealing tax polity, cultivating special community culture and so on. Without an analysis of other possible solutions and an careful comparison among them, the arguer’s recommendation is unconvincing.

In conclusion, there are not sufficient evidence to support the arguer’s recommendation. To strengthen the recommendation, the arguer should firstly rule out other factors causing the raise of property value in Brookville community and proof that that there does exist similarities between the two communities. To make the recommendation more convincing, the arguer should also provide a detailed analysis and comparisons of other feasible solutions.

fetusUID: 2122681

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting."

提纲：

1.  the arguer makes a "after this, therefore because of this" mistake.

2.  a false analogy between the Brookville community and Dearhaven Arces.

3. Lack of an analysis and comparison of other possible solutions.

正文：

In this argument, the arguer recommends all homeowners in Ceerhaven Acres adopt own set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting to raise property values in local area. To support the recommendation, the arguer points out that the nearby Brookville community adopted such kind of restrictions seven years ago and their property values raised (rose). It seems convincing at the first glance, however, a few critical flaws exist under scrutinize.

In the first place, the arguer makes a “after this, therefore because of this” by assuming a cause relationship between the restrictions on landscaping and colors and the raise of property value. The arguer neglects lots of other possible determinant factors. For example, the city economy level has experienced increase in the past seven years thus the property value of the entire city has been raised. It is still possible that lots of big companies have chosen Brookville community as their location because of the transport advantage of it. There is no evidence that the regulations have played positive role in the raise of Brookville’s property value. It is quite possible that the property value could had (have) raised to a higher level if without (there were no 原句有点Chinese English)those regulations on landscaping and colors. 本段还可以写的具体点，大公司坐落在此，之后呢？可以继续分析下去，譬如这些公司找员工，吸引了大批外地的人，人们纷纷来此工作，安家落户，提升了房价。

In the second place, it is hasty to go to the conclusion that Deerhaven Acres (should) adopt similar set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting, even if the causal relationship between the regulation and raise of property value is true in Brookville community. Firstly, the regulation of Brookville is adopted seven years ago, there is no guarantee that that scheme will still work well now. Secondly, the outside environment, house structure could be quite different between these two communities. Maybe most of the buildings in Brookville communities are apartments, while houses in Deerhaven Acres are comprised of various structures and size. The accordance in the former does make some beauty sometimes, while a little house with large garden could be a little ridiculous, the arguer provides no information about that. Finally, a compultory (compulsory) regulation may cause some residents pursuit (n. used as vi.?) for freedom and uniqueness choose other communities to reside, the property value could experience a decline rather than raise.似乎这一段批驳的没怎么有力度阿，有点表面化

Last but not least, the arguer refers to no other solutions to raise the property value of Deerhaven in the recommendation. As we know, there are lots of other methods to increase the property value of certain area, such as appealing tax polity, cultivating special community culture and so on. Without an analysis of other possible solutions and an (a) careful comparison among them, the arguer’s recommendation is unconvincing.

In conclusion, there are not sufficient evidence(s) to support the arguer’s recommendation. To strengthen the recommendation, the arguer should firstly rule out other factors causing the raise of property value in Brookville community and proof that that there does exist (用法是不是不对？) similarities between the two communities. To make the recommendation more convincing, the arguer should also provide a detailed analysis and comparisons of other feasible solutions.

逻辑错误找的都对，安排的也很合理，结构上也well-organized, 欠缺的就是批驳的深度。最好能给人一气呵成的感觉，而且要具体，不要空洞，做到让他们读起来不断的点头，呵呵。

一些小的语法错误以及词的用法，练习的时候多注意吧，不周到之处，我们再讨论讨论

我的，谢了https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

[ 本帖最后由 fetus 于 2006-3-10 10:10 编辑 ]

goodgoodstudyUID: 201753

贴一个我自己的提纲吧，说是提纲其实就是中心句，把那些繁琐的反复的话去掉！
Firstly, the author has unfairly concluded that a set of restrictions adopoted in nearby Brookville community resulted in a  increase of average property.

Secondly, based on what might be a false analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres, the author concluded that Deerhaven Acres would benefit from the policy as well. However, no such evidence is provided.

另外说一句，楼主的第三个攻击点，按我的原则，会把它放进第二点的论证引用中，自我感觉这篇的攻击点大的只有2个，其他的就是些细节了。

fetusUID: 2122681

sigh还等着楼主改呢

zouf78UID: 2195833

Sample Text
我刚刚模拟了一下这题目，因为明天我要去考试了;)感觉这个题目不难，但是要写成有深度不容易。读了你写的东东，觉得有点罗索。恐怕考官不会有耐心看完。在理论和事例之间过渡不明显。其实不要觉得for instance 或者for example太俗，能给人清晰的感觉。或者就干脆用let's imagine, or let's say...我们那里的老外经常用的。祝福我吧。等明天我考完了写作，再来和大家分享3月13日的题目是什么。。