[a习作temp] Issue2 第一次限时，超了5min -,-b [复制链接]

playerh
UID: 2127107

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 170
注册时间: 2005-8-11
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-21 18:14:05 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

我承认我学坏了，又臭又长……

In this argument, the author concludes that the homeowners from Deehaven Acres(DA) should adopt a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting themselves, in order to raise property values. To support this, the arguer points out that the homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restriction on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted seven years ago. The result of this action, as the author cites, is that the average property values in Brookville tripled since then. The argument is problematic in several aspects, rendering it unconvincing as it stands.
To begin with, the rise in average property values does not mean that the value of every property has undergone such an increase. Perhaps it is the dramatic increase of values of a small fraction of properties that mainly contribute to the raised average values. While some properties enjoy a significant rise in value, the prices of others may increase only a little, or even have no increase at all. So the rise in average values cannot be a convincing proof that all the properties in Brookville have enjoyed a great increase.
Admittedly, the values of most properties may be raised. However, the author make an unsubstantiated assumption that it is the set of restrictions taken by homeowners seven years ago that mainly contributes to this increase. Moreover, it is possible that other factors can also play important roles in leading to such an increase. For example, maybe many markets, schools, bus stations have been built near Brookville in the past seven years. This can result in a huge increase in the property value because life there is more convenient and more people are willing to live there. Or perhaps the government has solved the pollution problem near Brookville, so the environment is much better now than it was seven years ago. Unless the author can rule out all the possibilities, he may not draw a cause-and-fact relationship between the actions of homeowners and the raised average property values.
Another flaw in this argument is that the arguer makes an unwarranted assertion that the action, which worked well in Brookville, will equally benefit Deerhaven Acres. Considering that these two communities may be different in many aspects, for instance, the location of the community, the populations reside in it and the surrounding environment. The claim is only sound after the arguer have given clear evidence that the two communities are similar in all aspects.
Finally, the author neglected an obvious fact that the homeowners in Brookville took the action seven years ago. Considering huge changes may have taken place during the past seven years, the arguer cannot draw the conclusion that what worked well at that time may have the same effects nowadays. Although the property values may rise after the homeowners in DA take the action, it may not be as significant as it was seven years ago.
In sum, as it stands the argument is unpersuasive. To bolster it the author must show that the values of all the properties in Brookville have increased a lot in the past seven years. Also useful would be any evidence that the increase is largely contributed by the restrictions adopted by the homeowners rather than by any other factors. To better access the argument it would be useful to know that DA and B share so many characters that the action benefit B would have the same effect on DA. Furthermore, the argument can be better supported if the arguer can prove the situation remains the same during the past seven years. Unless the argument is warranted by the evidences and proofs above, we cannot agree with the committee’s suggestion for the homeowners in DA to adopt certain restrictions to raise the property values there.
In this argument, the author concludes that the homeowners from Deehaven Acres(DA) should adopt a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting themselves, in order to raise property values. To support this, the arguer points out that the homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restriction on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted seven years ago. The result of this action, as the author cites, is that the average property values in Brookville tripled since then. The argument is problematic in several aspects, rendering it unconvincing as it stands.
To begin with, the rise in average property values does not mean that the value of every property has undergone such an increase. Perhaps it is the dramatic increase of values of a small fraction of properties that mainly contribute to the raised average values. While some properties enjoy a significant rise in value, the prices of others may increase only a little, or even have no increase at all. So the rise in average values cannot be a convincing proof that all the properties in Brookville have enjoyed a great increase.
Admittedly, the values of most properties may be raised. However, the author make an unsubstantiated assumption that it is the set of restrictions taken by homeowners seven years ago that mainly contributes to this increase. Moreover, it is possible that other factors can also play important roles in leading to such an increase. For example, maybe many markets, schools, bus stations have been built near Brookville in the past seven years. This can result in a huge increase in the property value because life there is more convenient and more people are willing to live there. Or perhaps the government has solved the pollution problem near Brookville, so the environment is much better now than it was seven years ago. Unless the author can rule out all the possibilities, he may not draw a cause-and-fact relationship between the actions of homeowners and the raised average property values.
Another flaw in this argument is that the arguer makes an unwarranted assertion that the action, which worked well in Brookville, will equally benefit Deerhaven Acres. Considering that these two communities may be different in many aspects, for instance, the location of the community, the populations reside in it and the surrounding environment. The claim is only sound after the arguer have given clear evidence that the two communities are similar in all aspects.
Finally, the author neglected an obvious fact that the homeowners in Brookville took the action seven years ago. Considering huge changes may have taken place during the past seven years, the arguer cannot draw the conclusion that what worked well at that time may have the same effects nowadays. Although the property values may rise after the homeowners in DA take the action, it may not be as significant as it was seven years ago.
In sum, as it stands the argument is unpersuasive. To bolster it the author must show that the values of all the properties in Brookville have increased a lot in the past seven years. Also useful would be any evidence that the increase is largely contributed by the restrictions adopted by the homeowners rather than by any other factors. To better access the argument it would be useful to know that DA and B share so many characters that the action benefit B would have the same effect on DA. Furthermore, the argument can be better supported if the arguer can prove the situation remains the same during the past seven years. Unless the argument is warranted by the evidences and proofs above, we cannot agree with the committee’s suggestion for the homeowners in DA to adopt certain restrictions to raise the property values there.