【clover】Argument2 习作 by cyct

cyctUID: 2728144

题目：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."
字数：411
用时：1:27:15
日期：2010-2-4

In this argument, the conclusion that by adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting the nearby Brookville community (short for B)used seven years ago, the property values could also raise in the Deerhaven Avers (short for D) for the reason that B's average property values have tripled seems reasonable. Closer inspection of this argument, however, indicated that there are several fallacies existed.

First of all, the arguer fails to consider other possible alternative explanations that might also lead to the increase of property values. Although the property values in B have tripled in seven years, how much did the price actually increase after adjustment for inflation? Perhaps the property values have already risen for four or five times, which indicate that the set of restrictions in B is not attribute to the price increasing. In addition, some other changes might have happened in B which raises its property values rather than the restriction itself. Shopping mail or entertainment facilities, for instance, might be built in this area attracting more investor to come and boost the price. Before indicating the usefulness of these rules, comparing with other nearby communities and investigating thoroughly on all the alternatives would be helpful.

Even if the property values in B indeed increased due to adopting a set of restrictions, the arguer still can not conclude that these rules will also be useful to D. It is obvious that the arguer fails to consider the conditions and situations different between B and D.
For example, if the location or the environment of B is much better than that of D, more individual will prefer to live in the B and thus the population will increase and so do the property values. Another possibility is that perhaps the people in B prefer uniform while it is not the case in D, which means the house with uniform color and landscaping are more likely to be sold at high price in B and thus the average house price might rise faster than anywhere else. Beside above-mentioned different, any other factors concerning the convenience of B will dramatically influence the higher average property.

To sum up, before the recommendation is adopted to promote the development of real estate in D, a more detail and thorough investigation should be conducted to truly find out an effective way to promote the average property values rather than simply copy the experience from other communities where the situation might be totally different.

wcnkUID: 2546550

改动在 Issue 243里。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... p;page=1&extra=

cyctUID: 2728144

第一次修改：

In this argument, the conclusion that by adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting the nearby Brookville community (short for B)used seven years ago, the property values could also raise in the Deerhaven Avers (short for D) for the reason that B's average property values have tripled seems reasonable. Closer inspection of this argument, however, indicated that there are several fallacies existed.

First of all, the arguer fails to consider other possible alternative explanations that might also lead to the increase of property values. Although the property values in B have tripled in seven years, how much did the price actually increase after adjustment for inflation? Perhaps the property values have already risen for four or five times, which indicate that the set of restrictions in B is not attributed to the price increasing. In addition, some other changes might have happened in B which raises its property values rather than the restriction itself. Shopping mail or entertainment facilities, for instance, might be built in this area attracting more investor to come and boost the price. Before indicating the usefulness of these rules, comparing with other nearby communities and investigating thoroughly on all the alternatives would be helpful.

Even if the property values in B indeed increased due to adopting a set of restrictions, the arguer still cannot conclude that these rules will also be useful to D. It is obvious that the arguer fails to consider the different circumstances between B and D. For example, if the location or the environment of B is much better than that of D, more individual will prefer to live in the B and thus the population will increase and so do the property values. Another possibility is that perhaps the people in B prefer uniform while it is not the case in D, which means the house with uniform color and landscaping are more likely to be sold at high price in B and thus the average house price might rise faster than anywhere else. Beside above-mentioned different, any other factors concerning the convenience of B will dramatically influence the higher average property.

To sum up, before the recommendation is adopted to promote the development of real estate in D, a more detail and thorough investigation should be conducted to truly find out an effective way to promote the average property values rather than simply copy the experience from other communities where the situation might be totally different.

tofeeUID: 2485486

AW看起来没什么问题，提不出好意见，继续努力:)