求改作文啊，argument2

馨沁心晴UID: 2796986

我的习作：
Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious suspicion, the statement draws a conclusion that DA should adopt a set of restriction on landscape and housepainting to raise its property value .To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer point out evidence that seven-year-early till now, B nearby DA ’property value have tripled. In addition, he indicates that seven years early in B ,the homeowners adopted a set of restriction being landscaped and housepainting ao that lead the property value raised. At first glace,the author’s argument appears to be somewhat convincing,but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.In my point of view,this argument suffers from 3 logical flaws.

First of all, as mentioned in the argument,the property of values of B have tripled due to take the restriction of being landscaped and housepainting.It probably calls for other reasons:such as the large amount need of houses, turning-better economic,hotter position of B .

Admittedly, even the argument above is ok,that is a result of seven-year-old change. The trend whether to be continued or not, can’t come to an exact conclusion. Not only the men may not pay more or even the same attention to the color and landscape of the house,but also there are extreme possibilities that people concern the size ,the position,the structure,the safety,the healthy more,that the houses show and reveal.
                                                                                                      
The argument also does not notice that,even the above grounds are accepted by the readers,it doesn’t mean the situation occur in B to be transplanted into DA.The conclusion is just for the B, relating to the enviroment of B,the inhabitant of B, he phenomenon of B,the fancy of the people living in B.DA is a place that must be somehow different from B, such as the house-buy-need and the concern-angle of buying ,kinds of core points uncomparant,leading the impossible transplant.

To sum up,this arguer fails to substantiat its claim that DA should take the landscape and housepaint,because the evidences cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the arguer maintains.To make the argument more convicing,the arguer would have to provide more information with regard to the statistics of the the measures that take in B 7years ago really have triplred the price of house. Additionally, he would have to demonstrate that the situation in B is exactly the same as it in DA so that the result in B can be taken into DA. Therefore,if the argument had included the given factors discussed above,it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.


酝酿了好久写了这篇啊，各位大侠帮忙修改一下啊~~~多谢多谢啊！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！