argument2【clover】第二次小组作业 by a08805436

a08805436UID: 2725634

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."
Due to the fact that average property values have tripled in Brookville, the arguer get to the conclusion that in order to raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres, they should also adopt their set of restrictions. At first sight, the argument seems to be justifiable, but close scrutiny reveals that the evidence neither constitutes a logical statement in support of its conclusion nor providing compelling support making this argument sound and invulnerable.

At first place, the arguer infers that the restrictions on landscaping and house painting should be responsible for the increase of average property in Brookville, based on the fact that the economic rise occurred after the restriction. However, the consequence of these events, in itself, does not suffice to prove the earlier development caused the latter one. It might have resulted from some other events instead. Maybe the economic environment had changed during that time and thus propelled the development of the average property values, or maybe the governor of Brookville regulate the policy and make it suitable for the economic increase. Without ruling out scenarios such as these, the arguer cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the restrictions and the tripled property values.

Even if we assuming that the economic boom was due to the restrictions, the arguer's recommendation relies on what might be a poor analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven. The analogy falsely depends on the assumption that the economic environment in both Brookville and Deerhaven are similar. However, it is entirely possible that the policies, the consuming groups and the capacity of the governors are totally different. In short, without accounting for important possible difference between the two places, the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method will help raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres.

Finally, it is necessary to point out another flaw significantly undermines this argument that the arguer neglects to indicate how recently the restrictions was actually conducted. All we know is that the restrictions in Brookville is conducted several years ago. The less recent the report itself, the less reliable are the results.

To sum up, the conclusion reached by the author lacks credibility since the argument has several flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands. To make it more convincing, further investigations and analysis are needed to rule out other possibilities, such as the economic environment and the policies of the two places.

黑竹UID: 2753377

Due to the fact that average property values have tripled in Brookville, the arguer get to the conclusion that in order to raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres, they should also adopt their set of restrictions. At first sight, the argument seems to be justifiable, but close scrutiny reveals that the evidence neither constitutes a logical statement in support of its conclusion nor providing(是否应该用provides，和constitutes对应) compelling support making this argument sound and invulnerable.

At first place, the arguer infers that the restrictions on landscaping and house painting should be responsible for the increase（increasing value） of average property in Brookville, based on the fact that the economic rise occurred after the restriction. However, the consequence of these events, in itself, does not suffice to prove the earlier development caused the latter one. It might have resulted from some other events instead. Maybe the economic environment had changed during that time and thus propelled the development（用increase可能更好） of the average property values, or maybe the governor of Brookville regulate the policy（make policy to regulate） and make it suitable for the economic increase. Without ruling out scenarios such as these, the arguer cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the restrictions and the tripled property values.

Even if we assuming that the economic boom（“经济繁荣”这个太广泛，建议用increasing value of the property） was due to the restrictions, the arguer's recommendation relies on what might be a poor analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven. The analogy falsely depends on the assumption that the economic environment in both Brookville and Deerhaven are similar. However, it is entirely possible that the policies, the consuming groups and the capacity of the governors are totally different. In short, without accounting for important possible difference between the two places, the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method will help raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres.

Finally, it is necessary to point out another flaw significantly undermines（undermining） this argument （加上is）that the arguer neglects to indicate how recently the restrictions was actually conducted.（这句在修改前，that引导的从句修饰的是“argument”，如果要that从句修饰flaw，则that从句应紧随flaw） All we know is that the restrictions in Brookville is conducted several years ago. The less recent the report itself, the less reliable are the results.

To sum up, the conclusion reached by the author lacks credibility since the argument has several flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands. To make it more convincing, further investigations and analysis are needed to rule out other possibilities, such as the economic environment and the policies of the two places.



橙色部分是我不确定的地方，如果是对的，那值得学习，

个人意见，仅供参考

misirUID: 2684938

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."

Due to the fact that average property values have tripled in Brookville, the arguer get to the conclusion that in order to raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres, they should also adopt their set of restrictions. At first sight, the argument seems to be justifiable, but close scrutiny reveals that the evidence neither constitutes a logical statement in support of its conclusion nor providing compelling support making this argument sound and invulnerable.

At first place, the arguer infers that the restrictions on landscaping and house painting should be responsible for the increase of average property in Brookville, based on the fact that the economic rise occurred after the restriction. However, the consequence of these events, in itself, does not suffice to[长见识了~] prove the earlier development caused the latter one. It might have resulted from some other events instead. Maybe the economic environment had changed during that time and thus propelled the development of the average property values, or maybe the governor of Brookville regulate the policy and make it suitable for the economic increase. Without ruling out scenarios such as these, the arguer cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the restrictions and the tripled property values.

Even if we assuming that the economic boom was due to the restrictions, the arguer's recommendation relies on what might be a poor analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven. The analogy falsely depends on the assumption that the economic environment in both Brookville and Deerhaven are similar. However, it is entirely possible that the policies, the consuming groups and the capacity of the governors are totally different. In short, without accounting for important possible difference between the two places, the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method will help raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres.

Finally, it is necessary to point out another flaw significantly undermines this argument that the arguer neglects to indicate how recently the restrictions was actually conducted. All we know is that the restrictions in Brookville is conducted several years ago. The less recent the report itself, the less reliable are the results.

To sum up, the conclusion reached by the author lacks credibility since the argument has several flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands. To make it more convincing, further investigations and analysis are needed to rule out other possibilities, such as the economic environment and the policies of the two places.
要学习你运用模板的能力~此文好像没什么错误，强悍！
-----------------------------------------
看下载的文件。。。

a08805436UID: 2725634

5# misir
感谢指教， 这篇文章最大的问题就是模板太多，当时赶着打字去了，没注意到模板用过头了，囧