【clover】106G Argument2 by 九天揽月

九天揽月UID: 2737667

Argument2 2010-02-04
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."

The letter is hardly well-reasoned by making the comparison of the restrictions on community decorations between two different places at various times. To increase property values in Deerhaven Acres, one should thoroughly consider all alternative issues except landscaping and housepainting regulations.

First, whether the raise in property values counted on the adoption of restrictions in Brookville is doubtful. Since there is no sufficient evidence that homeowners have carried out the methods, it is possible that with or without the restrictions make no difference for the boost. Even it does so, we can't rule out other issues that also make contributions to the increase in property values. Is it true that only the community's yards and homes' exteriors are crucial for the home sales? What if the quality of the houses has been improved? Or the environment of the communities has become better? Perhaps the latters are the key.

Another flaw in this letter lies in that the same methods in Brookville may not guarantee the raise in Deerhaven Acres. The committee fails to figure out the differences between the two places. For example, if transportation of Brookville is more convenient than Deerhaven Acres, then the values will be more likely to rise. Are there more homeowners who live by investing in real estates in Brookville? If so, they are perhaps more experienced in property and may make the property value ascend.

Finally, it is questionable to apply the recommendation in the past to the present. Since every possible change can happen during this time, it is fallacious to perceive the conditions with the same eyes. The letter fails to describe the changes of the holistic economy, the property market and the preferences of customers; therefore, we can't be convinced that the methods could raise property values in Deerhaven Acres as well. Furthermore, without analysis of supply and demand at present, it is unsubstantial to assume the same increase in Deerhaven Acres.

In sum, unless the committee can provide sufficient evidences to illustrate the factors of property value rising should the homeowners accept the suggestions proposed.
怎样才能凑够字数呢？？？

chaliaUID: 2589767

改好啦~~

九天揽月UID: 2737667

辛苦CC了，我改了一遍，如下：
Argument2 2010-02-04
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."

七年前，附近的Brookville社区的业主采用了如何美化社区庭院及房屋外观应涂何种颜色的规定。从那以后，该地的平均房价增长了三倍。 为了提高DA的房价，我们应该采纳一套同样的规定。
1.
采用并不等于实施，因此该规定可能并没有落实，不能断定房价增长与该规定必然相关。
2.
即使落实，该规定也不太可能是房价增长的关键。房价增长也可能是居民收入增加、地价增长、市场需求增大、道路交通环境的改善等其他因素引起的。
3.
即使这些影响因素相同，两地的差异性也不具可比性。可能B地居民更多是依靠投资房产为生，在管理、宣传、对市场信息的把握上更有经验，因此更能吸引消费者购买。
4.
此外，过去七年许多情况发生变化，不能保证适用于现在。

The letter is hardly well-reasoned by making the comparison of the restrictions on community decorations between two different places at various times. To increase property values in Deerhaven Acres, one should thoroughly consider all alternative issues rather than landscaping and house painting regulations.

First, whether the raise in property values counted on the adoption of restrictions in Brookville is doubtful. Since there is no sufficient evidence that homeowners have carried out the methods, it is possible that with or without the restrictions make no difference for the boost.

Even the restrictions were implemented, we can't rule out other issues that also make contributions to the boost in property values. For example, the only the community's yards and homes' exteriors are crucial for the home sales? What if the income of citizens has increased? Or the supply of properties has decreased while demand has improved? Or the land values have rised? If the transportation is more convenient, it can also raise the property values. Accordingly, the landscaping and house painting regulations can’t be the only factors to affect the property values.

Another flaw in this letter lies in that the same methods in Brookville may not guarantee the raise in Deerhaven Acres. The committee fails to figure out the differences between the two places. For instance, are there more homeowners who live by investing in real estates and are more experienced in management and more skillful in market information in Brookville? If so, they may make the property value ascend.

Finally, it is questionable to apply the recommendation in the past to the present. Since every possible change can happen during this time, it is fallacious to perceive the conditions with the same eyes. The letter fails to describe the changes of the holistic economy, the property market and the preferences of customers; therefore, we can't be convinced that the methods could raise property values in Deerhaven Acres as well. Furthermore, without analysis of supply and demand at present, it is unsubstantial to assume the same increase in Deerhaven Acres.

In sum, unless the committee can provide sufficient evidences to illustrate the factors of property value rising should the homeowners accept the suggestions proposed.