[a习作temp] argument51 [kb9.11]第五次作业 [复制链接]

prophetluo
UID：2240098

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 241
注册时间: 2006-8-9
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-19 04:34:54 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

The conclusion that the Deerhaven Acresshould adopt their own set of restriction on landscaping and housepaining inorder to rasie property values  seems atfirst glance to be convince notion. To support the notion the author present anevidence that  homeowner in nearbyBrookvill community adopted a set of restrictions seven years ago, then theaverage property value had tripled in Brookville. A careful examination of theargument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
In the frist place,the author failed toestablish a causal relationship. The fact that Brookville community adopted aset of restrictions seven years ago does no necessarily ensure the increase ofthe average property values which may be caused by other factors. For example, theinvestment environment accidentally changed better after a set of restrictionswere be adopted, then many merchants rush into this place most of whom wereeasy to purchase a house in Brookville, whereas the average property is extremelylikely to be triple. It is also possible that the development of the commercenearby Brookville community ,brought great benefits to the increase of theaverage property value.
In the second place, the statisticalevidence up which the argument relies on is no statistical reliable. Even ifthe causal relationship between the adoption of a set of restrictions and the increaseof average property value, there still were not enough evidence to support the conclusion. Firstly, the old averageproperty values contrasted by the one after a set of restrictions adopted,should be clarified. If we just  supposethat the old property value is 1$ ,there was little increase after beingtripled. Secondly he author misled the reader using the average number. If the total amount of yards nearby Brookvillecommunity is low, and accidentally a excepensive house was sold the average propertyvalue may soar up ,however this kind of statistical evidence was none ofuseless.
In the third place, a false analogy wasmade by the author. to begin with, the Brookville community and the DeerhavenAcers were different in locations .If the Brookville community was famous inits scope but Deerhave's view or environment was not very good ,the conclusionis an serious mistake. In addition the time when  the evidence took place is seven year ago. Differenteconomical circumstance influence the purchasing power of the consumers, soif  it is inflatable now and there was noone who can afforded a house ,the proper value would  diminish.
To sum up, the argument suffers from severalfatal fallacy. To strength the conclusion more evidence  should be given to ensure that causalrelationship established. To better evaluate the argument, the author wouldhave to provide  proper analogy.

回应
0

使用道具举报

wuye
UID：2348444

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 215
注册时间: 2007-6-10
精华: 0
帖子: 3

沙发

发表于 2007-8-19 22:18:33 |只看该作者

No.6 wuye

The conclusion that the Deerhaven Acresshould adopt their own set of restriction on landscaping and housepaining inorder to rasie property values seems atfirst glance to be convince notion. To support the notion the author presents anevidence that homeowner in nearbyBrookvill community adopted a set of restrictions seven years ago, then theaverage property value had tripled in Brookville. A careful examination of theargument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is. (这种排列顺序也不错！值得推广！)

In the frist place,the author failed toestablish a causal relationship. The fact that Brookville community adopted aset of restrictions seven years ago does no necessarily ensure the increase ofthe average property values which may be caused by other factors. For example, theinvestment environment accidentally changed better after a set of restrictionswere be adopted, then many merchants rush into this place most of whom wereeasy to purchase a house in Brookville, whereas the average property is extremelylikely to be triple. （比我想到的好多了！）It is also possible that the development of the commercenearby Brookville community ,brought great benefits to the increase of theaverage property value.

In the second place, the statisticalevidence up which the argument relies on is no statistical reliable. Even ifthe causal relationship between the adoption of a set of restrictions and the increaseof average property value, there still were not enough evidence to support the conclusion. Firstly, the old averageproperty values contrasted by the one after a set of restrictions adopted,should be clarified. If we just supposethat the old property value is 1$ ,there was little increase after beingtripled. Secondly he author misled the reader using the average number. If the total amount of yards nearby Brookvillecommunity is low, and accidentally a excepensive house was sold the average propertyvalue may soar up ,however this kind of statistical evidence was none ofuseless.（大家好像不建议把statistic单挑出来揍~） In the third place, a false analogy wasmade by the author. to begin with, the Brookville community and the DeerhavenAcers were different in locations .If the Brookville community was famous inits scope but Deerhave's view or environment was not very good ,the conclusionis an serious mistake. In addition the time when the evidence took place is seven year ago. Differenteconomical circumstance influence the purchasing power of the consumers, soif it is inflatable now and there was noone who can afforded a house ,the proper value would diminish.

To sum up, the argument suffers from severalfatal fallacy. To strength the conclusion more evidence should be given to ensure that causalrelationship established. To better evaluate the argument, the author wouldhave to provide proper analogy.(结尾有点泛泛~)

很好，很好！
模版不错，有继承，有发扬！！！
JUST继续IT！

[ 本帖最后由 wuye 于 2007-8-19 22:21 编辑 ]

我若没说，你怎么知道？

使用道具举报