- 最后登录
- 2013-1-12
- 在线时间
- 6 小时
- 寄托币
- 1113
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2004-10-29
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 15
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 1050
- UID
- 184012
![Rank: 4](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level3.gif)
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 1113
- 注册时间
- 2004-10-29
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 15
|
Argument2
In this letter, the committee homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres suggested that they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting just like the Brookville does. To support their suggestion, the committee cites the fact that seven years ago, the homeowners from Brookville set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, after that, the average property values have risen three times, so the Deerhaven Acres should do the same thing as Brookville do. Close security the fact, however, reveals that it lends credible support to the suggestion. (scrutiny)Maybe you should change into “ With scrutiny, however, it lends credible support to the suggestion.”
First, the letter claims the reason why Brookville’s average property values have tripled is that their homeowners adopt own restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. This letter(The arguer fails to 注意单复数) fail to substantiate they really have cause-and-effect relationship(good), though the property has risen after the restriction adopted, it can only indicate that they the only have relationship in time. Unless the author gives direct attest, it would not convince me that the property was affected by the restriction.
Secondly, even if the restriction has cause-and-effect relationship with the average property, the author doesn’t eliminate the possibility of other reasons may effect to the property. Perhaps, Brookville Acres has become the center of the city, it’s convinced traffic, comfortable condition; modern establishments are all lead to the jump of the property. Without ruling out other possible reasons for the risen property, the author cannot convince me to that conclusion.
Thirdly, even assuming that the main reason of the risen property in Brookville is the restriction, the author assumes further that the restriction will also have effect in Deerhaven Acres. Deerhaven are not the same, even similar with Brookville, the author fail to consider the difference between these two acres. For instance, the homebuyer in Deerhaven may (be) not interested in the same landscaping and housepainting, on contrarily (contrary), they may think the restriction is quite simplify and like more individual style. Yet, the letter contains no evidence to support this assumption, and have not considered the dissimilar of two acres. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that even if adopt same restriction in Deerhaven, the average property in Deerhaven would not risen.
Finally, even assuming there has no difference between these two acres, the author should also give other evidences that it would have no change in seven years. The author may neglect the Brookville adopted the restriction is seven years before, although the two acres are similar, the big change happen in seven years would also lead the different result in Deerhaven.
In sum, until the author substantiates the assumption that there has no other factors could affect to the property; there has no difference between Brookville and Deerhaven; and there has no change during seven years time, I remain unconvinced that adopt own set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting would also lead to the raise of average property. |
|