argument2求拍 谢谢帮忙

iwvUID: 2759912

请留下你的文章地址或联系方式，有拍必回，互相帮助

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."


In the argument, the arguer demonstrates that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer sites the fact that the average property values in nearby Brookville community have tripled since the restrictions been adopted. However, the argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

The assumption that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting can raise the property value is open to doubt. The arguer failed to rule out several other factors which also contribute to the result and mislead us by regarding the consequence event as a casual relationship. Does the raising of property value is caused by the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting? Considering the flourishing of the market, the preference of people in the landscaping and hosepainting, which can cause a boom in the average property values, we can not draw a hasty conclusion without firm information and statistic.

Another point which is unwarranted is that the strategy which is effective and efficient in Brookville not always useful in deerhaven Acres. Is the culture in Deerhaven Acres the same with Brookville? Does the landscape need some restrictions? Will the people desire to practice these restrictions? All of these have to be taken into consideration. Maybe the people in different places conceive different idea in choosing the house in which they live. However, the arguer does not provide any evidence to prove the situation in Deerhaven is similar with that of Brookville and nothing can substantiate the result will be sacrificed.

Even assuming that the restrictions do boom the property values, the restrictions in Brookville, what is conducted seven years ago are not definitely still effective now. We can not rule out the possibilities that the relationship between supply and demand has changed, therefore people may have different taste in the house outside-looking. Given the growing number of citizens, the decreasing in the acreage for property, the ever-changing preference, all of these are significant factors benefit the raising of property values.

To sum up, in the absence of evidence, the conclusion is unconvincing. In order to convince all the people, the arguer have to search more firm evidence to prove the situation in Deerhaven is similar with that of Brookville and to substantiate the how the restriction effect the property values.

iwvUID: 2759912

自己顶

headeyeUID: 2671390

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."

In the argument, the arguer demonstrates that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer sites the fact that the average property values in nearby Brookville community have tripled since the restrictions been adopted. However, the argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

The assumption that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting can raise the property value is open to doubt. The arguer failed to rule out several other factors which also contribute to the result and mislead us by regarding the consequence event as a casual relationship. Does the raising of property value is caused by the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting? Considering the flourishing of the market, the preference of people in the landscaping and hosepainting, which can cause a boom in the average property values, we can not draw a hasty conclusion without firm information and statistic. 觉得这里写成Considering the factors of … could be …, we can not…. 更好懂一点。。

Another point which is unwarranted is that the strategy which is effective and efficient in Brookville not always useful in deerhaven Acres. Is the culture in Deerhaven Acres the same with Brookville? Does the landscape need some restrictions? Will the people desire to practice these restrictions? All of these have to be taken into consideration. Maybe the people in different places conceive different idea in choosing the house in which they live. However, the arguer does not provide any evidence to prove the situation in Deerhaven is similar with that of Brookville and nothing can substantiate the result will be sacrificed.

Even assuming that the restrictions do boom the property values, the restrictions in Brookville, what is conducted seven years ago are not definitely still effective now. We can not rule out the possibilities that the relationship between supply and demand has changed, therefore people may have different taste in the house outside-looking. Given the growing number of citizens, the decreasing in the acreage for property, the ever-changing preference, all of these are significant factors benefit the raising of property values.

To sum up, in the absence of evidence, the conclusion is unconvincing. In order to convince all the people, the arguer have to search more firm evidence to prove the situation in Deerhaven is similar with that of Brookville and to substantiate the how the restriction effect the property values.

其实我还没有开始准备argument….看这个题目我也想到的这3个漏洞。语言和论证都不错，实在找不出哪里一定要改的，只有那个地方稍微有点看不懂，就换了个说法。。
iwv同学是什么时候考aw啊？

after17UID: 2681985

In the argument, the arguer demonstrates that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer sites the fact that the average property values in nearby Brookville community have tripled since the restrictions been adopted. However, the argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

The assumption that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting can raise the property value is open to doubt. The arguer failed to rule out several other factors which also contribute to the result and mislead us by regarding the consequence event as a casual relationship. Does the raising of property value is caused by the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting? Considering the flourishing of the market, the preference of people in the landscaping and hosepainting, which can cause a boom in the average property values, we cannot draw a hasty conclusion without firm information and statistic. 这一段好像是说Painting and landscaping不是地产增值的原因。但是好像论据不充分。我没看懂这段
囧 ~

Another point which is unwarranted is that the strategy which is effective and efficient in Brookville （is） not always useful in deerhaven Acres. Is the culture in Deerhaven Acres the same with Brookville? Does the landscape need some restrictions? Will the people desire to practice these restrictions? 很好的论据
All of these have to be taken into consideration. Maybe the people in different places conceive different idea in choosing the house in which they live. However, the arguer does not provide any evidence to prove the situation in Deerhaven is similar with that of Brookville and nothing can substantiate the result will be sacrificed.

Even assuming that the restrictions do boom（prosper） the property values, the restrictions in Brookville, what is conducted seven years ago are not definitely still effective now. We cannot rule out the possibilities that the relationship between supply and demand has (been) changed, therefore people may have different taste in the house outside-looking(房子的供求关系改变了，能够导致人们的tastes改变？). Given the growing number of citizens, the decreasing in the acreage for property, the ever-changing preference, all of these are significant factors benefit the raising of property values 这段想说的是七年前的东西不适用，我觉得这句话没多大用处.

To sum up, in the absence of evidence, the conclusion is unconvincing. In order to convince all the people, the arguer have to search more firm evidence to prove the situation in Deerhaven is similar with that of Brookville and to substantiate the how the restriction effect the property values.

建议在思考一下那几个逻辑错误。 有些小小的语法错

链接在这咯 https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1058764&page=1#pid1773588070

iwvUID: 2759912

谢谢after17

还有几个问题
had change那应该是被改变吗？ 我怎么觉的实用主动呢，我再查查。

我是想说房子的供求关系变了，可能就导致供不应求，所以并不是因为人们喜欢那样的房子才去买的，这样解释可以吗？我再想想应该怎样说的更清楚一点

还有高人可以指点一二吗

iwvUID: 2759912

很感谢大家，回拍进行中

iwvUID: 2759912

headeye 改的那句没看懂，不好意思。我这月22号考，眼看着就要到了，你呢