[a习作temp] Argument2 [勇往直前小组]第四次作业ByPuding [复制链接]

Puding
UID：2364107

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 2
寄托币: 376
注册时间: 2007-7-16
精华: 0
帖子: 4

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-24 01:18:41 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument 2: 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."
正文:
In the argument, the author concludes that they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise their property values. To support his conclusion, he points out that homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted such restrictions seven years ago and had their property values tripled since then. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to be appealing, while clearly examining the author’s reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.

First and foremost, the argument observes a correlation between the set of restrictions in Brookville and the increase of their average property values, then conclude that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the argument fails to rule out other possible explanations. For example, perhaps the residents need more houses than before, or the business in this community might developed so that the property values increased. With out ruling out these, it is unfair to draw such conclusion.

Second, even though the increase of their average property values was due to the restrictions indeed. The author assumes without justification that the background had remained the same in seven years. There are likely all kinds of differences between now and seven years ago. For instance, the commercial condition, government’s investment or other possible factors would change. These factors, if true, would undermine the author’s claim.

Last but not least, even assuming the trend remained unchanged in the past seven years, the author’s recommendation relies on a poor analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven. This analogy poorly depends on the assumption that the conditions in both Brookville and Deerhaven are similar. However, it is entirely possible that the conditions in the two places are different. In specific, the two places might have distinguished commercial conditions, human conditions, need for houses. The Deerhaven might not be interested in the exterior appearance of houses. Without pointing out such possibilities, the author cannot persuade me that Deerhaven can reap the same benefit with Brookville.

To sum up, the arguer fails to substantiate his claim that they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise their property values, because the evidence in the analysis dose not lend strong support to what the author maintains. And the hasty decision to execution this plan with out clearly investigation is bound to incur the antipathy of the homebuyers. To make the argument more convincing, the author should investigate more homebuyers and get enough information and then make decision. At least avoid homebuyers moving out of the house as a result.

提纲：
Argument178:
1.       忽略他因：按个数算得有很多人去计每个工人的工作量。另外制作不可能由一个工人全部完成，stream lining production，这种方式都有问题。 ·
2.    无理假设更多更好的生产：更多有可能，但质量肯定下降。工人求数量多嘛。质量不好，就有可能遭来投诉，销量下降，利润就没了。
3.    无理假设省电省安全：工人求速度，可能会导致更多的安全事故。 ·
4.    工人，不是最好的，是最快的，还有可能是最会投机取巧的

Argument161
1.       古典文学里有很多都是神话小说。奥德赛，希望神话都是古典小说
2.       混淆概念：阅读习惯不等于借阅。公共图书馆不是唯一的书源。可以买，可以去私人图书馆。有可能是因为公共图书馆里古典小说藏量不丰富，或是神话小说过多而造成的。人们只是顺便借来看看。 ·
3.       survey类错误：第二次研究时间多长，有可能只是暂时现象。比如流行。

Argument202
1.       前提，不是人造成的灭绝。没有接触也能造成灭绝，破坏食物链，污染等等。 ·
2.    前提，人没有捕杀哺乳动物。没有发现有遗弃骨头的地方，不证明不猎杀。有可能只带肉回来，或是把骨头做成了装饰品。There still a logical error made by the arguer by treating a lack of proof that something is the case as consituting sufficient proof that it is not the case.

Argument133:
1.       不一定成立的前提，A校学生学生对于表演艺术没有兴趣而对计算机有兴趣。论断里没有学生的声音，论者可能根本没有问题过学生。没有学生说对表演没有兴趣。 ·
2.    错误类比：A校与T校的对比不能说明问题。
首先，两校在师资、设备及学生等方面都有差异，
其次，论者选择的标准不合适，论者选用学生在大学里的专业选择作为学生是否对各自的课后活动项目有兴趣，这不准。

回应
0

使用道具举报

zhangjing106
UID：2157010

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 415
注册时间: 2005-11-12
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2007-7-24 22:08:28 |只看该作者

In the argument, the author concludes that they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise their property values. To support his conclusion, he points out that homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted such restrictions seven years ago and had their property values tripled since then. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to be appealing, while clearly examining the author’s reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.First and foremost, the argument observes a correlation between the set of restrictions in Brookville and the increase of their average property values, and then conclude(concludes) that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the argument fails to rule out other possible explanations. For example, perhaps the residents need more houses than before, or the business in this community might developed(develop) so that the property values increased. With out ruling out these, it is unfair to draw such conclusion.(例子可以再深入一些)Second, even though the increase of their average property values was due to the restrictions indeed. The author assumes without justification that the background had remained the same in seven years. There are likely all kinds of differences between now and seven years ago.（这一句的意思是不是说情况有完全的不同，似乎表达有点问题） For instance, the commercial condition, government’s investment or other possible factors would change. These factors, if true, would undermine the author’s claim.Last but not least, even assuming the trend remained unchanged in the past seven years, the author’s recommendation relies on a poor analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven. This analogy poorly depends on the assumption that the conditions in both Brookville and Deerhaven are similar. However, it is entirely possible that the conditions in the two places are different. In specific, the two places might have distinguished commercial conditions, human conditions, need for houses. The Deerhaven might not be interested in the exterior appearance of houses. Without pointing out such possibilities, the author cannot persuade me that Deerhaven can reap the same benefit with Brookville.To sum up, the arguer fails to substantiate his claim that they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise their property values, because the evidence in the analysis dose（does） not lend strong support to what the author maintains. And the hasty decision to execution this plan with out clearly investigation is bound to incur the antipathy of the homebuyers. To make the argument more convincing, the author should investigate more homebuyers and get enough information and then make decision. At least avoid homebuyers moving out of the house as a result.
结构没问题，前两段在举出反证后要进一步加以说明。结尾的一些内容可以放在前文中。

使用道具举报

woodman
UID：161906

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 3
寄托币: 3057
注册时间: 2004-4-17
精华: 1
帖子: 166

板凳

发表于 2007-7-24 23:52:53 |只看该作者

In theargument, the author concludes that they should adopt their own set ofrestrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise their property values.To support his conclusion, he points out that homeowners in nearby Brookvillecommunity adopted such restrictions seven years ago and had their propertyvalues tripled since then. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to beappealing, while clearly examining the author’s reasoning, we may find that itis unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.　开头不错，有进步
First and foremost, the argument observes a correlation between the set of restrictionsin Brookville and the increase of their average property values, then concludethat the former is the cause of the latter. However, the argument fails to ruleout other possible explanations. For example, perhaps the residents need morehouses than before, or the business in this community might developed so thatthe property values increased. With out ruling out these, it is unfair to drawsuch conclusion.　还是老问题，举例太少了，就一个，很单薄阿
Second, even though the increase of their average property values was due tothe restrictions indeed. The author assumes without justification that thebackground had remained the same in seven years. There are likely all kinds ofdifferences between now and seven years ago. For instance, the commercialcondition, government’s investment or other possible factors would change.These factors, if true, would undermine the author’s claim.举例太少了

Last but not least, even assuming the trend remained unchanged in the pastseven years, the author’s recommendation relies on a poor analogy betweenBrookville and Deerhaven. This analogy poorly depends on the assumption thatthe conditions in both Brookville and Deerhaven are similar. However, it isentirely possible that the conditions in the two places are different. Inspecific, the two places might have distinguished commercial conditions, humanconditions, need for houses. The Deerhaven might not be interested in theexterior appearance of houses. Without pointing out such possibilities, theauthor cannot persuade me that Deerhaven can reap the same benefit withBrookville.

To sum up, the arguer fails to substantiate his claim that they should adopttheir own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise theirproperty values, because the evidence in the analysis dose not lend strongsupport to what the author maintains. And the hasty decision to execution thisplan with out clearly investigation is bound to incur the antipathy of thehomebuyers. To make the argument more convincing, the author should investigatemore homebuyers and get enough information and then make decision. At leastavoid homebuyers moving out of the house as a result.
观点都到位了，结构也很好，就是例证太少了，结尾写得比正文的例证还长，怎么行呢？以后多写点例证啊，否则太单薄了。

使用道具举报