自己觉得还不错的处男作Argument2

sharkcc01UID: 2659359

In this argument ,the author draws the conclusion that they should adopt their own set of restricions on landscaping and housepainting.At first glance,the argument seems to be somewhat convincing,but futher reflection reveals that it omits some substantial evidents that should be addressed
in the argument.From the logical perspective,the argument primely suffers from three obvious flaws.

Firstly,based on the fact that the property values increased after the adopt of the strictions,the argument assumes that the former should be responsibel for the later one.However,without convincing proofs,the sequence of the events does not suffice to build a causel relationship between them.It is likely that the increasement is due to rigid demand of the local people or the manipulation of some speculators’ undue investing in the market or,as a consequence of inflation.Thus ,without ruling out these factors,the arguer can not establish a cause-and-effect relationship between them.

Secondly,even assuming that it is the restriction that responsible for the increase of average property values,the author commits a fallacy of "All things are equal".The fact that time of the promugation of these constrictions is seven years ago may not a sound evidence to the draw the conclusion.The arguer assumes witout justification that the background conditions are remained the same at different times .It is entirely possible
that people's appreciation of beauty has changed,for example,the structure of the house,the location of the estate or the space of the certain house are not what people appreciate nowadays.Also,economy condition nowadays may not optimistic, such as the whole world are suffering a serious economy crisis, people will not tend to buy houses, however effective the restrictions are.Stagnating himself in past, without foresight, the arguer’s view would probably be out of date.

Thirdly,even assuming that the trend in Brookville will continue,the author has based on a false analogy,he simply draws a conclusion that their community will also gain profits like Brookville.It is maybe the case  that the structure of the residents are different or the level of income  between
the two areas has a big gap.Also,the local residents maybe satisfied with  therir current styles of yards and a color of change will lead to their revolt or even protest.So,without taking these differences into consideration,it is not convincing for Deerhaven Acres to raise values.

To sum up,the arguer fails to substantiate the claim that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restricions on landscaping and housepainting because the evidence he cited does not lend strong support to what he maintains.In order to the argument more convincing ,the arguer would have to provide more details with regard to the situation of estate in Deerhaven Acres and the details of the Brookville's restricions .Furthermore,he would have to give the definite reasons why the property values have tripled in Brookville.Therefore,if the arguer had included the given factors discussed above,it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

sharkcc01UID: 2659359

来人啊  发了几天了都没动静 这一版怎么回事

tonechowUID: 2755161

LZ的开头和结尾太长，中间段展开不够充分。
鉴定完毕。
不过第一篇的话，都是这样。。。。
加油