The arguer recommends Deerhaven Acres(DA) to adopt restrictions of Brookville community(BC) on landscaping and housepainting for the reason BC tripled its average property values after the restrictions. The argument seems convincing at the first glance, which, after scrutiny, suffers two main flaws.
To begin with, the arguer unfairly attributes the tripling of the property values to the restrictions on landscaping. In fact, no information is provided to prove the cause-and -effect relationship between the two. The restrictions used seven years ago do not direct the value rising even though the former happened before the latter. On the other hand, it is highly possible that other factors lead to the rising of the property value. Perhaps there are new public appliance built nearby such as a high way or a great supermarket, which would consequently higher the property value of community around. Or perhaps, the rising is just due to the development of the whole city even the country causing the average property values of all communities up, which have a big possibility to happen in the seven years. Without ruling out all these scenarios, the arguer cannot simply connect the restriction on landscaping and housepainting with the tripling of property values.
Then, the arguer draws the conclusion that DA should apply the same method with BC assuming that the two share the undifferentiated attributes on every aspect, which is unsubstantiated. We are not informed of any detail of DA, which may reveal the real reason why DA could not rise property value much as BC. It is possible that the quality of the property of the two communities differs, making DA got the chance of rising as BC did. It is also possible that management of DA is more weak than DA impeding the development DA in fact which have nothing to do with the landscaping and housekeeping. The arguer fails to list the similarity of the two communities, which eventually destroys fundament of his final conclusion that DA should use the same restrictions.
To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should pay more attention on the details of the two communities. He/She should give more convincing fact to build the causal relationship between the value rising and restrictions, as well as to show the same attributes of the two communities. In that way, the arguer could justify the final conclusion that DA should apply the same restriction to get the same success as BC.作者: woshiwm 时间: 2007-8-10 21:16:29
The arguer recommends Deerhaven Acres(DA) to adopt restrictions of Brookville community(BC) on landscaping and housepainting for the reason that BC tripled its average property values after the restrictions. The argument seems convincing at the first glance, which, after scrutiny, suffers two main flaws.
To begin with, the arguer unfairly attributes the tripling of the property values to the restrictions on landscaping. In fact, no information is provided to prove the cause-and -effect relationship between the two. The restrictions used seven years ago do not direct the value rising even though the former happened before the latter. On the other hand, it is highly possible that other factors lead to the rising of the property value. Perhaps there are new public appliance built nearby such as a high way or a great supermarket, which would consequently higher the property value of community around. Or perhaps, the rising is just due to the development of the whole city even the country causing the average property values of all communities up, which have a big possibility to happen in the seven years. Without ruling out all these scenarios, the arguer cannot simply connect the restriction on landscaping and housepainting with the tripling of property values.
Then, the arguer draws the conclusion that DA should apply the same method with BC assuming that the two share the undifferentiated attributes on every aspect, which is unsubstantiated. We are not informed of any detail of DA, which may reveal the real reason why DA could not rise property value much as BC. It is possible that the quality of the property of the two communities differs, making DA got the chance of rising as BC did. It is also possible that management of DA is more weak than DA impeding the development DA in fact which have nothing to do with the landscaping and housekeeping. The arguer fails to list the similarity of the two communities, which eventually destroys fundament of his final conclusion that DA should use the same restrictions.
To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should pay more attention on the details of the two communities. He/She should give more convincing fact to build the causal relationship between the value rising and restrictions, as well as to show the same attributes of the two communities. In that way, the arguer could justify the final conclusion that DA should apply the same restriction to get the same success as BC.
A不错，尤其在语句方面，比较地道