ARGUE2 【0706G－cheer作文互改小组第一次作业】

flyyuhaoUID: 2248478

提纲：
1.作者把Brookville的外观限制和房价的翻番之间的先后发生混淆为因果关系。影响房价的因素很多，很可能是由于供求关系以及通货膨胀导致了房价的升值。
2.让步，作者的假设正确，错误类比。两个地方的差异并不能推出Deerhaven也能采取这种方式。
3.作者引用的证据是7年前，时间上存在漏洞

In this argument,the arguer claims that Deerhaven Acres community should adopt a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exterriors of homes should be painted to raise property values in this district.To substantiate the conclusion,the arguer cites the example of Brookville,where the average property values had tripled since they had had similar restrictions.However,the argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

First of all,the arguer unnecessarily establish a cause-effect relationship between the restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and the raise of property values in Brookville.It is highly possible that other reasons,such as the change in supply and demand,may be the main reason for the raise of property values.Actually,in most places,supply and demand relationship always dominates the rise and fall of property values.Furthermore the arguer ignores the possibility that inflation might be another significant cause for the phenomenon. Unless the arguer also takes this factor into consideration, the comparison is unconvincing.

To say the least,suppose the arguer can convice us the causal relationship is credible--namely,the restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped is the main reason for the raise of property values in Brookville--there is also many flaws that weaken the logic of the argument.For example,the arguer fails to provide any evidence to assure us that the situation in these two regions are comparable,that is to say,the two situations are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. The situations of these two aeras may varies in traffic condition,enviroment,public sevice and many aspects.Unless the arguer take all these aspects into account,the analogy is improper.

Before I come to my conclusion,it is necessary to point out another flaw in the argument that the evidence the auohtr cites happened 7 years ago,it is suspectable that weather the evidence is still effective now.Community circumstance and medicine insurance would have been greatly improved during the past 7 years.Besides, the auguer should have a interview with more residents,for a good many of residents may be strongly against these restrictions.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and the raise of property values in Brookville.Besides, the arguer makes a false analogy between the situations in Brookville and in Deerhaven Acres. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about traffic condion and many other aspects in details.

[ 本帖最后由 flyyuhao 于 2007-2-11 21:35 编辑 ]

seedtpUID: 2240849

In this argument,the arguer claims that Deerhaven Acres community should adopt a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exterriors of homes should be painted to raise property values in this district.To substantiate the conclusion,the arguer cites the example of Brookville,where the average property values had tripled since they had had similar restrictions.However,the argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

First of all,the arguer unnecessarily establish a cause-effect relationship between the restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and the raise of property values in Brookville. It is highly possible that other reasons,such as the change in supply and demand, may be the main reason for the raise of property values.Actually,in most places,supply and demand relationship always dominates the rise and fall of property values.Furthermore the arguer ignores the possibility that inflation might be another significant cause for the phenomenon[phenomenon好像用的不好]. Unless the arguer also takes this factor into consideration[由于你举了很多的例子,这样说更恰当些:Unless the arguer accounts for these and other possible factors], the comparison is unconvincing.

To say the least,suppose the arguer can convice[convince] us the causal relationship is credible--namely,the restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped is the main reason for the raise of property values in Brookville--there is also many flaws that weaken the logic of the argument.For example,the arguer fails to provide any evidence to assure us that the situation in these two regions are comparable,that is to say,the two situations are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction[这句有点重复的感觉]. The situations of these two aeras[areas] may varies in traffic condition,enviroment,public sevice and many aspects.Unless the arguer take all these aspects into account,the analogy is improper.

Before I come to my conclusion,it is necessary to point out another flaw in the argument that the evidence the auohtr[author] cites happened 7 years ago,it is suspectable that weather the evidence is still effective now.Community circumstance and medicine insurance would have been greatly improved during the past 7 years.Besides, the auguer[arguer] should have a interview with more residents,for a good many of residents may be strongly against these restrictions.

In conclusion, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and the raise of property values in Brookville.Besides, the arguer makes a false analogy between the situations in Brookville and in Deerhaven Acres. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about traffic condion[condition] and many other aspects in details.



[ 本帖最后由 seedtp 于 2007-2-13 23:44 编辑 ]