[a习作temp] ARGUMENT2【Aero小组】第6次作业 [复制链接]

可乐加冰84
UID: 2221571

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 24
寄托币: 1644
注册时间: 2006-6-13
精华: 0
帖子: 6

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-1-16 14:39:39 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT2 - The following appearedin a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to allhomeowners in Deerhaven Acres.

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearbyBrookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yardsshould be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted.Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order toraise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set ofrestrictions on landscaping and housepainting."
WORDS: 489 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-1-16 13:47:30

In this letter, Deerhaven Acres's(DA)committee of homeowners recommends building their own set of restrictions onlandscaping and housepainting. To support this recommendation the committeecites the fact that Brookville's average property value has been increasedafter adopting restrictions on landscape and housepainting. However, clearscrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little support for therecommendation.

First of all, there is not a directcause-and-effect relation between the restrictions adopted by Brookville'shomeowners and profits from the increasing property value. The argument ignoresseveral factors which may affect the property market and value directly. Perhaps,the Brookville's government increases the infrastructural investments, such as buildingparks and roads, in the Brookville community. And these measures might make thecommunity become more suitable for living, therefore the property valueincreases rapidly naturally along with the popular of these properties. Orperhaps, many people are willing to living close to the nature, and Brookvillecommunity also maintains its nature environment quite well. In any event,lacking directly evidences to prove the cause-and-effect relationship betweenraising property value and the adopted restrictions, the argument's authorcannot convince me as it stands.

Secondly, even if the cause-and-effectrelationship among them exists, the restrictions, used in seven years ago,might be useless for the present situation. Before seven years, the peoplemight have been attracted by the splendid landscape and unified housepaintingin Brookville community. At present the people, however, consider that therestrictions in housepainting are not respected to human's private rights andpersonality. And therefore, if we still remain the used methods andrestrictions, the property value might be decreased and even no one house, adoptedthese restrictions, can be sold in the end.

Finally, even assuming the usedrestrictions and strategies are also useful, the different condition betweenBrookville and Deerhave Acres should be taken into account. The DA's committeesuggests adopting the Brookville's restriction without considering the differentia.If the DA does not have the same beautiful landscape like Brookville community,landscape the DA's property might be not only decreases the value, but also reducesthe sold number of the property. And if the restricting housepainting in DA isnot suit for the located condition, the property might also be affected afteradopting these restrictions. Without better evidence about the situations oftwo communities are nearly same, it might be folly to follow the committee'srecommendation.

In sum, the argument relies on several poorevidences and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it thecommittee of DA's homeowners must provide clear evidence that only therestrictions adopted in Brookville cause the community’s property value rising,and that the methods and restrictions adopted in seven years ago can also bringthe same benefits. The committee must also show that the different situationsbetween two communities do not affect the effect of these restrictions, and therestrictions adopted in Brookville community are also suit for the DAcommunity.

[ 本帖最后由可乐加冰84 于 2008-1-17 11:05 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

tonyyore
UID: 2317273

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 143
注册时间: 2007-3-21
精华: 0
帖子: 3

沙发

发表于 2008-1-18 10:45:12 |只看该作者

In this letter, Deerhaven Acres's(DA)committee of homeowners recommends building their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To support this recommendation the committeecites(arguer cites) the fact that Brookville's average property value has been(删除) increased after adopting restrictions on landscape and housepainting. However, clear scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little support for the recommendation.

First of all, there(it) is not a direct cause-and-effect relation between the restrictions adopted by Brookville'shomeowners and profits from the increasing property value.(relation between的应该是一件事和另一件事，比如说: between the adoption of the restrictions and the increase in property values in B，而不是restrictions和property values的关系) The argument ignores several factors which may affect the property market and value directly. Perhaps, the Brookville's government increases the infrastructural investments, such as building parks and roads, in the Brookville community. And these measures might make the community become more suitable for living, therefore the property value increases rapidly naturally along with the popularity of these properties. Or perhaps, many people are willing to living close to the nature, and Brookville's community also maintains its nature environment quite well. In any event, lacking directly evidences(evidence是不可数的) to prove the cause-and-effect relationship between raising property value and the adopted restrictions, the argument's author cannot convince me as it stands.

Secondly, even if the cause-and-effect relationship among them exists, the restrictions, used in seven years ago,might be useless for the present situation. Before seven years, the peoplemight have been attracted by the splendid landscape and unified housepainting in Brookville's community. At present the people, however,(At present, however, people) consider that the restrictions in housepainting are not respected to human's private rights and personality. And therefore, if we still remain the used methods and restrictions, the property value might be decreased(decrease) and even no one house, adopted these restrictions, can be sold in the end.

Finally, even assuming the used restrictions and strategies are also(still) useful, the different condition between Brookville and Deerhave Acres should be taken into account. The DA's committee suggests adopting the Brookville's restriction without considering the differentia. If the DA does not have the same beautiful landscape like Brookville community,landscape the DA's property might be not only decreases the value, but also reduces the sold number of the property. And if the restricting housepainting in DA is not suitable for the located condition, the property might also be affected after adopting these restrictions. Without better evidence about(proves that) the situations of two communities are nearly same, it might be folly to follow the committee's recommendation.

In sum, the argument relies on several poor evidences(不可数) and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the committee of DA's homeowners must provide clear evidence that only the restrictions adopted in Brookville cause the community’s property value rising, and that the methods and restrictions adopted in seven years ago can also bring the same benefits. The committee must also show that the different situations between two communities do not affect the effect of these restrictions, and the restrictions adopted in Brookville community are also suit for the DA community.

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

houyanchun
UID: 2432949

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 519
注册时间: 2007-11-30
精华: 0
帖子: 0

板凳

发表于 2008-1-18 21:14:26 |只看该作者

回复 #1 可乐加冰84 的帖子

ARGUMENT2【Aero小组】第6次作业
TOPIC: ARGUMENT2 - The following appearedin a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to allhomeowners in Deerhaven Acres.

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearbyBrookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yardsshould be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted.Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order toraise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set ofrestrictions on landscaping and housepainting."

In this letter, Deerhaven Acres's(DA)committee of homeowners recommends building their own set of restrictions onlandscaping and housepainting. To support this recommendation the committeecites the fact that Brookville's average property value has been increased after adopting restrictions on landscape and housepainting. However, clear scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it lends little support for there commendation.

First of all, there is not a direct cause-and-effect relation between the restrictions adopted by Brookville's homeowners and profits from the increasing property value. The argument ignores several factors which may affect the property market and value directly. Perhaps, the Brookville's government increases the infrastructural investments, such as building parks and roads, in the Brookville community. And these measures might make the community become more suitable for living, therefore the property value increases rapidly naturally along with the popular of these properties. Or perhaps, many people are willing to living close to the nature, and Brookville community also maintains its nature environment quite well. In any event, lacking directly evidences to prove the cause-and-effect relationship between raising property value and the adopted restrictions, the argument's author cannot convince me as it stands.

Secondly, even if the cause-and-effect relationship among them exists, the restrictions, used in seven years ago, might be useless for the present situation. Before seven years, the people might have been attracted by the splendid landscape and unified house painting in Brookville community. At present the people, however, consider that the restrictions in housepainting are not respected to human's private rights and personality. And therefore, if we still remain the used methods and restrictions, the property value might be decreased and even no one house, adopted these restrictions, can be sold in the end.

Finally, even assuming the used restrictions and strategies are also useful, the different condition between Brookville and Deerhave Acres should be taken into account. The DA's committee suggests adopting the Brookville's restriction without considering the differentia(differences).If the DA does not have the same beautiful landscape like Brookville community, landscape the DA's property might be not only decreases the value, but also reduces the sold number of the property. And if the restricting housepainting in DA is not suit for the located condition, the property might also be affected after adopting these restrictions. Without better evidence about the situations of two communities are nearly same, it might be folly (foolish) to follow the committee's recommendation.

In sum, the argument relies on several poor evidences(evidence) and is therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the committee of DA's homeowners must provide clear evidence that only the restrictions adopted in Brookville cause the community’s property value rising, and that the methods and restrictions adopted in seven years ago can also bring the same benefits. The committee must also show that the different situations between two communities do not affect the effect of these restrictions, and the restrictions adopted in Brookville community are also suit for the DA community.
加油，哈哈。思路清楚，语言流畅。再接再厉。

使用道具举报