[a习作temp] Argument2 [Jet]小组第一次作业第三篇A，多谢拍砖 [复制链接]

goldin2008
UID: 2140085

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 19
寄托币: 1404
注册时间: 2005-9-20
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-1-29 18:14:36 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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: 584 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2008-1-29

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, homeowners there should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. He points out that if they adopt their own set of restrictions, property values in Deerhaven Acres would increase and cites many facts and evidences to support his assertion. However, through a logical and precise scrutiny, I become aware of several dubious fallacies in this argument that should be questioned and criticized.

As a threshold matter, even if I concede that homeowners in Deerhaven Acres can copy what homeowners in nearby Brookville have done such as landscaping and housepaiting, the arguer’s conclusion is still merely based on a dubious and unsound premise that a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting result in the increasing of the property values. It is entirely possible that landscaping and housepainting are not the significant factor responsible for the increasing of the property values, at least not the only one. The arguer fails to consider and rule out other alternative explanations. Such alternatives might include the fact that authority made regulations and laws which could attract investment, or that new technology was widely developed in Brookville as in Silicon Valley. Or perhaps, government built new highway and railroad nearby Brookville. Another scenario is that Brookville community built many new advanced facilities. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion. To substantiate the assumption or justify the claim, the arguer should provide sufficient evidence. Thus, regardless of whether the facts and evidences used to support the premise are adequate, the author cannot convince me that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting would result in the increasing of the property values.

In addition, even if the landscaping and housepainting are the vital factor affecting the property values, the author still overlooks the time and commits a fallacy of false analogy. The arguer’s inference that the restrictions which were effective in the past will also be effective in the future relies on poor assumption that during the last seven years all conditions upon which the effectiveness depends have remained unchanged. Also, the mere fact in Brookville landscaping and housepainting have served to increase the property values is scant evidence that Deerhaven Acres would achieve its goals by following Brookville’s example. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on Deerhaven Acres due to geological differences between the two places. In short, lacking evidence that conditions on the two places are relevantly similar, the author cannot convince me on the basis of Brookville’s experience that the proposed course of action would be effective in attaining Deerhaven Acres’ goals.

Finally, the author falsely equates average property values with all property values. It is entirely possible that some property values increase while others decrease. If so, the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres would not accept the restrictions, because nobody know which would benefit from the restrictions before they are set.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the course of action which was effective in the past will be also effective in the future. It could be further improved by providing evidence that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting are the vital factor affecting the property values. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

[ 本帖最后由 goldin2008 于 2008-1-30 02:29 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

dreamstring
UID: 2389201

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 4
寄托币: 1303
注册时间: 2007-8-25
精华: 0
帖子: 6

沙发

发表于 2008-1-30 18:14:40 |只看该作者

In this argument, the author draws a conclusion that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, homeowners there should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. He points out that if they adopt their own set of restrictions（连用两个不太好，试着换一个说法）, property values in Deerhaven Acres would increase and（这里用and连接不太好，觉得和上一句的并列关系不是很强，或许可以令写一句’To support his assertion, the author cites many facts…）cites many facts and evidences to support his assertion. However, through a logical and precise scrutiny, I become aware of several dubious fallacies（可疑的错误？双重否定了吧？是不是应该是“可疑的事实”或者“可疑的推理”？） in this argument that should be questioned and criticized.

As a threshold matter, even if I concede that homeowners in Deerhaven Acres can copy what homeowners in nearby Brookville have done such as landscaping and housepaiting, the arguer’s conclusion is still merely based on a dubious and unsound premise that a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting result in the increasing of the property values. It is entirely possible that landscaping and housepainting are not the significant factor responsible for the increasing of the property values, at least not the only one（有回旋余地，写的很好）. The arguer（换一个词吧，总用arguer？）fails to consider and rule out other alternative explanations. Such alternatives might include the fact（用include the possibility比较好，might include the fact始终有“事实”的意味） that authority made regulations and laws which could attract investment, or that（删掉） new technology was widely developed in Brookville as in Silicon Valley. Or perhaps, government built new highway and railroad nearby Brookville. Another scenario is that Brookville community built many new advanced facilities. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion. To substantiate the assumption or justify the claim, the arguer should provide sufficient evidence. Thus, regardless of（of是不是应该删掉？） whether the facts and evidences used to support the premise are adequate, the author cannot convince me that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting would result in the increasing of the property values.

In addition, even if the landscaping and housepainting are the vital factor affecting the property values, the author still overlooks the time（“忽视了时间问题”，有点中国化，想想有没有什么别的说法） and commits a fallacy of false analogy. The arguer’s inference that the restrictions which were effective in the past will also be effective in the future relies on poor assumption that during the last seven years all conditions upon which the effectiveness depends（depended） have remained unchanged. Also, the mere fact in Brookville landscaping and housepainting have served to increase the property values is scant evidence that Deerhaven Acres would achieve its goals by following Brookville’s example. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on Deerhaven Acres due to geological differences between the two places. In short, lacking（being lack of ）evidence that conditions on(in) the two places are relevantly similar, the author cannot convince me on the basis of Brookville’s experience that the proposed course of action would be effective in attaining Deerhaven Acres’ goals.（不应该是DA的goals，应该是DA的人们的goals）

Finally, the author falsely equates average property values with(to) all property values. It is entirely possible that some property values increase while others decrease. If so, the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres would not accept the restrictions, because nobody know which would benefit from the restrictions before they are set.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The argument could be improvedby providing evidence that the course of action which was effective in the past will be also effective in the future. It could be further improvedby providing evidence that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting are the vital factor affecting the property values. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

整个文章思路还是很清晰的，但是感觉论证不够均匀，第一、第二点论证的过多，第三点相对太少了。第一点的论证里，反例适当用一两个就够了，说明问题就行，用的过多就显得啰嗦了。相反，在第三点里应该适当具体的说一下，“some property values是什么，others是什么，有什么样的可能使得一些增长而另一些下降的”，不然总觉得这一段写得过于笼统，而且有草草收笔的感觉。
新手遇见，有不妥之处还请见谅：）

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

goldin2008
UID: 2140085

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 19
寄托币: 1404
注册时间: 2005-9-20
精华: 0
帖子: 2

板凳

发表于 2008-1-30 20:39:55 |只看该作者

原帖由 dreamstring 于 2008-1-30 18:14 发表
In this argument, the author draws a conclusion that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, homeowners there should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepain ...

lacking of 和equate... with... 应该没用错吧，我是从北美范文里看到的，一个鬼子写的

使用道具举报