ARGUMENT2 - Thefollowing appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from theDeerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres.
"Seven yearsago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions onhow the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors ofhomes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled inBrookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we shouldadopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting."
In the letter, the speaker recommend that residents in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own series of restrictions on landscaping and house painting, for the purpose of increasing property values. To support his claim, he cites the example of theBrookville community. However, there exist many problems in the argument, which made the speaker' assertion unwarranted.
The threshold problem with the argument is that the speaker makes an unmeaning analogy.Maybe Brookville community differs from Deerhaven Acres in many aspects. For example, Perhaps Brookville community is near from urban city or even located in the center of city, while DeerhavenAcres is far from urban city. Or perhaps they are both urban communities, while Brookville bares more advantages because its life environment is better than Deerhaven Acres. Without making a comprehensive comparison, the speaker cannot confidently conclude that the same measures are useful in Deerhaven Acres.
The second problem with the argument is that the speaker assumes the restrictions is the the cause of the raising of property values. While there may be other factors which also have relations with the raising of property values such as the inflation factor,which makes the value of Brookville community higher and higher. The speaker fails to establish a causal relationship between restrictions and the raisingof property values.
The third problem with the argument is that even the restrictions seven years ago make sense; it maynot make any sense now. It is entirely possible that at that time, people more enjoyed those houses which painted in beautiful color and landscaped yards, so restrictions in Brookville community help the community attract people’attention, therefore its value increased. However, after seven years, people’value concept might has been changed a lot, and the restrictions may not gain the same consequence as Brookville community.
To sum up, inorder to make the conclusion more convincing, the speaker should make acomprehensive comparison between two communities. Also, more aspects concerning with property’s value should be provided, and the causal relationship between restrictions and the raising of property value should be proved clearly.
ARGUMENT2 – The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres.
"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."
In the letter, the speaker recommend (recommends) that residents in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own series of restrictions on landscaping and house painting, for the purpose of increasing property values. To support his claim (claims), he cites the example of the Brookville community. However, there exist(貌似应该用exists) many problems in the argument, which made(用一般现在时比较好) the speaker' assertion unwarranted.
The threshold problem with the argument is that the speaker makes an unmeaning analogy. Maybe Brookville community differs from Deerhaven Acres in many aspects. For example, Perhaps Brookville community is near from urban city or even located in the center of city, while Deerhaven Acres is far from urban city. Or perhaps they are both urban communities, while Brookville bares more advantages because its life environment is better than Deerhaven Acres. Without making a comprehensive comparison, the speaker cannot confidently conclude that the same measures are useful in Deerhaven Acres.
The second problem with the argument is that the speaker assumes the restrictions is (are) the cause of the raising of property values. While there may be other factors which also have relations with the raising of property values such as the inflation factor, which makes the value of Brookville community higher and higher. The speaker fails to establish a causal relationship between restrictions and the raising of property values.
The third problem with the argument is that even the restrictions seven years ago make sense; it may not make any sense now. It is entirely possible that at that time, people more enjoyed those houses which painted in beautiful color and landscaped yards, so restrictions in Brookville community help the community attract(attracts) people’（s） attention, therefore its value increased. However, after seven years, people’(s) value concept might has(have) been changed a lot, and the restrictions may not gain the same consequence as Brookville community.(might not result in the effect)
To sum up, in order to make the conclusion more convincing, the speaker should make a comprehensive comparison between two communities. Also, more aspects concerning with property’s value should be provided, and the causal relationship between restrictions and the raising of property value should be proved clearly.