TOPIC: 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 housepainting."
WORDS: 495 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2007-7-12 ÏÂÎç 11:25:45
This passage recommended an approach to Deerhaven to raise their property values by citing a successful example in nearby Berookville. Since these are two different areas and the passage did not provide any detail to clarify the similarities between two. Thus, this process of reasoning is unavailable and, the recommendation has not practicable for the residents living in the Deerhaven. I set the explanation for spell it out is following.
At the first, the restrictions had been setting since seven years ago. The span was a long time which can cause many possible changes during this time. Along these changing the property values may increase by lots of consequences. For example, the community built several public sports game spaces that to provide the children to play games and the elders to exercise. If the playground had highly quality that must will attract the buyer to notice their estate and therefore the prices could be rouse up. Again, the environment around Brookville community may develop during the seven years. It is possible the government bought the estate and used them to build other office buildings or advanced communities. This obvious movement rendered the businesses to bring out the new stores and markets near the community. In addition, the traffic conditions would be repaired since that. Naturally the price would be mounted up on the whole, and the Brookville community would be taken the advantages of this project.
To the second thing, using same way to increase the Deerhaven Acres values is not a fairly method. However, refer to a successful example is not a failure; the writer needs to provide more information about the Deerhaven Acres. If not, that those are many possibilities can lead the result to the failure. For the first, if the qualities of Deerhaven Acres are much worse than Brookville community. It could not be rouse up even if they had adopted the set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. Because of the most importance to be a house is the quality. People buy a house for living comfortable and safely. If the wall of house are loose, and the ground are not flat, even the color painting on the outer seems shinning, people would not paid more for buy it. They will pay the deserving money by measuring others.
In writing the last thing in the argument, to choose a special case to compare to their own estate, the writer will hardly attain the successful. If he wants to refer to the cases which had success in value increased. He would better to do more investigates of others conditions in this area as same as Deerhaven Acres. Also he needs to inquiries that are there any other elements impacting the value of the community? Like the transportation, the number of schools, the public facilities and green covering rate. Those are not the all things which can support this conclusion but more attractive to the potential readers which will look at the letter in future.
With some minor errors, but as a whole , an excellent argument...
Argument其实说白了就是尽可能的指出作者的错误然后举反例驳斥它 再用很好的逻辑和连接词句把它们串联起来
不要用太多的模板 它们只是过渡工具
看LZ的文章 里边有多少模板呢？
ETS正是希望看到这样的文章 清晰的论证和严谨的逻辑 而不是到处都用模板 实际什么也没说
(Addition: LZ,
1.what about the government's policy? If the government is inhibiting the raise of the real estate,could it be a good reason to refute the argument?
And what if that the overall country is under an economic depression? It will be difficult to raise property
values under the certain case. So it is not a wise decision to adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting at this period of time.
2 Do we need to consider the cost of unifying(restricting) the landscaping and housepaining? And de we need to consider homeowners' willingness if the adoption could really be effective?( I do not think so)
Please comment on these two points, thanks a lot~
Looking forward to your answer:)作者: creekprecious 时间: 2007-12-2 10:21:42
LZ再帮我看看作文好吗 给我指点指点 谢谢（SORRY TO DISTURB YOU）
ARGUMENT14 The following appeared in a memo from the owner of Green Thumb Gardening Center, a small business serving a suburban town. （写了30分钟 字数没数 ）
"There is evidence that consumers are becoming more and more interested in growing their own vegetables. A national survey conducted last month indicated that many consumers were dissatisfied with the quality of fresh vegetables available in supermarkets. And locally, the gardening magazine Great Gardens has sold out at the Village News stand three months in a row. Thus, we at Green Thumb Gardening Center can increase our profits by greatly expanding the variety of vegetable seeds we stock for gardeners this coming spring."
For the purpose of increasing their company’s profits, it seems a dependable way to greatly expand the variety of vegetable seeds that they stock. Nonetheless, this conclusion is unconvincing for the author fails to provide any solid evidence to make it reliable, the mere facts in the argument are insufficient to be fully accepted.
First of all, we have good reasons to doubt the validity and representativeness about the national survey conducted last month. Since it is a national survey, the result may best reflect the situation of overall country, and is probably not accord with the truth in a specific suburban. It is possible that few people in the suburban town claim to be dissatisfied with the quality of fresh vegetables in their living districts. Furthermore, provided that people are indeed dissatisfied with the quality of fresh vegetables, it does not necessarily mean that they will surely like to grow their own vegetables. Perhaps because of they do not have enough land to plant seeds, they are too busy to have enough time to take care of those vegetables, or they simply not have the plan to do so.
Similarly, the fact that the gardening magazine Great Gardens has sold out at the Village News stand three months in a row could not lend enough support to the argument as well. The author here bases on the gratuitous assumption that people buy the magazines to get some knowledge about planting, gardening or botany because they’re willing to grow their own vegetables. However, the author fails to substantiate his assumption. On the contrary, there is a large possibility that people buy the gardening magazine just for leisure and fun, or they just want to know something about how to take better care of their flowers on their balconies. In one word, they are actually not interested in growing their own vegetables at all.
What’s more, even in case that people really want to plant their own vegetables, it is not guaranteed that the company will get more profits. Without a concrete analysis about the potential costs and proceeds, as well as an investigation about people’s affordability, it is impossible to make any tenable conclusion.
In sum, the argument is easily disputable for its lack of any solid evidence. To further strengthen his conclusion, the author should provide direct evidence that people in this suburban town are indeed interested in growing their own vegetables and are likely to buy their vegetable seeds. A specific survey aimed at people’s attitude towards fresh vegetables in their town and people’s willingness to grow their own vegetables will worth anticipating.作者: creekprecious 时间: 2007-12-2 21:39:49