argument2 请大家斧正

wuwei2668UID: 189816

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 this argument,the author concludes that all the homeowners of deerhaven acres should adopt the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise the property values of deerhaven acres.to support his conclusion the author cites the fact that the average property values of brookville have tripled after the owners of brookville adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting seven years ago.as it stand,the argument suffers two critical flaws.

First of all,the author commits a fallacy of “post hoc,ergo proper hov”in assumping that adopting a set of restrictions include landscaping and housepainting is the cause of the tripling of the property values in brookville.obviously,the author fails to prove the causal relationship between the raise of property values in brookville and the adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.therefore,the fact will be more interesting if the author could present evidences about how adopting restrictions on landscaping and housepainting promoted the raise of property values in brookville,otherwise we have reasons to doubt the causal relationship between them.

In addition,the argument is based on a false analogy that deerhaven acres could necessarily raise its property values by simply coping the policy of brookville.as we know,the property values of a community are determined not only its location,but also the qualities of its houses and its services.maybe the brookville has a better location, which means the brookville may have become a business center after some big malls was built there and the transportation aroud there has been improved a lot during the seven years,than deerhaven.it is also possible that the brookville has more specialized services ,taking care of children of the owners when they are at work for instance.so from above we can dedue that even though the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting promote the raise of property values in brookville indeed,there is no guarantee it will be proved effective in deerhaven acres.

In conclusion,the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the raise of property values and the adopting restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.to strengthenh the argument,the author also has to prove that the conditions of deerhaven acres and brookville are similar in every aspects
[EMAIL=http//wuwei2668@163.com]wuwei2668@163.com[/EMAIL]

apolloxpUID: 156355

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 this argument,the author concludes that all the homeowners of deerhaven acres should adopt the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise the property values of deerhaven acres.to support his conclusion the author cites the fact that the average property values of brookville have tripled after the owners of brookville adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting seven years ago.as it standstands,the argument suffers two critical flaws.

First of all,the author commits a fallacy of “post hoc,ergo proper hov”in assumping that adopting a set of restrictions includeincluding landscaping and housepainting is the cause of the tripling of the property values in brookville.obviously,the author fails to prove the causal relationship between the raise of property values in brookville and the adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.第二句于第一句相比并没有提供更多的信息therefore,the fact will be more interesting if the author could present evidences about how adopting restrictions on landscaping and housepainting promoted the raise of property values in brookville,otherwise we have reasons to doubt the causal relationship between them.不客气地说，这段除了堆出了一些术语，套了些句型外，在论证上取得任何进展不大，值得好好改改

In addition,the argument is based on a false analogy that deerhaven acres could necessarily raise its property values by simply coping the policy of brookville.as we know,the property values of a community are determined not only its location,but also the qualities of its houses and its services.maybe the brookville has a better location, which means the brookville may have become a business center after some big malls was built there and the transportation aroud there has been improved a lot during the seven years,than deerhaven.it is also possible that the brookville has more specialized services ,taking care of children of the owners when they are at work for instance.so from above we can dedue that even though the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting promote the raise of property values in brookville indeed,there is no guarantee it will be proved effective in deerhaven acres.这段比前一段明显要好，能够做出具体的与原文结合的critique，论证的展开上还稍微有点乱

In conclusion,the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the raise of property values and the adopting restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.to strengthenh the argument,the author also has to prove that the conditions of deerhaven acres and brookville are similar in every aspects
wuwei2668@163.com
全文无数地方改大写的没大写，不知道是由于什么原因，最好还是改过来。argument套一些句型可以理解，不过这不能代替对原题的逻辑错误深入分析，尤其是想在argument上多拿分的。建议读读范文，还可以看看这个帖子里提到的关于argument的三篇文章
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=203735

wuwei2668UID: 189816

非常感谢你的修改，我也觉得不够好，我会再改一下的

wuwei2668UID: 189816

Argument2 The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deer-heaven Acres to all homeowners in Deer-heaven 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 Deer-heaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting."

In this argument, the author concludes that all the homeowners of deer-heaven acres should adopt the restrictions on landscaping and house-painting in order to raise the property values of Deer-heaven Acres. To support his conclusion the author cites the fact that the average property values of Brookville have tripled after the owners of Brookville adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting seven years ago. As it stands, the argument suffers two critical flaws.

First of all, the author commits a fallacy of “post hoc, ergo proper hoc” in assumping that adopting a set of restrictions include landscaping and house-painting is the cause of the tripling of the property values in Brookville. As we know, many reasons could lead to the raise of property values of a community. One possibility is that the transportation around the Brookville was improved which coincided with adopting restrictions on landscaping and house-painting of the owners of Brookville. Another probability is that the community of Brookville took more specialized services , taking care of owners’ children when they were at work for instance, just when the restrictions were taken in Brookville. We could not assert arbitrary the restrictions result in the raise of the property values because adopting these restrictions happened before the raise of property values in Brookville.

In addition, the argument is based on a false analogy that the Deer-haven acres could necessarily raise its property values by simply coping the policy of Brookville. On one hand, the Brookville took the restrictions seven years ago when the market’s situation and the consumers’ favor are both different from nowadays so that the restrictions might not be effective in Deer-heaven Acres. On the other hand, the location, designing style and houses’ qualities of the Deer-heaven Acres may also be different from the Brookville’s. Consequently we can deduce that even though the restrictions on landscaping and house-painting promote the raise of property values in Brookville indeed, there is no guarantee it will be proved effective in deer-haven acres.

In conclusion, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the raise of property values and the adopting restrictions on landscaping and house-painting. To strengthen the argument, the author also has to prove that the conditions of Deer-haven acres and Brookville are similar in every aspects
wuwei2668@163.com

apolloxpUID: 156355

好些了
个别地方还有语法错误 自己贴到word里看看
We could not assert arbitrary the restrictions result in the raise of the property values because adopting these restrictions happened before the raise of property values in Brookville.
这句感觉啰嗦
对原文的论据论点的转述最好简短一些并且不要反复提及
否则会有冗余之感

flyingwindUID: 189320

最初由 wuwei2668 发布
[B]First of all, the author commits a fallacy of “post hoc, ergo proper hoc”[/B]

看到这样的话我就不爽。。。

wuwei2668UID: 189816

In this argument, the author concludes that all the homeowners of deer-heaven acres should adopt the restrictions on landscaping and house’s painting in order to raise the property values of Deer-heaven Acres. To support his conclusion the author cites the fact that the average property values of Brookville have tripled after the owners of Brookville adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting seven years ago. As it stands, the argument is not so credible.
      
Obviously, the author commits a gratuitous assumption that adopting a set of restrictions include landscaping and house-painting is the cause of the tripling of the property values in Brookville. As we know, many reasons could lead to the raise of property values of a community. One possibility is that the transportation around the Brookville was improved which coincided with adopting the set of restrictions.  Another probability is that the community of Brookville took more specialized service, taking care of owners’ children when they were at work for instance, just when the restrictions were taken in Brookville. We could not assert arbitrarily that the restrictions resulted in the raise of the property values.

In addition, the argument is based on a false analogy that the Deer-haven acres could necessarily raise its property values by simply coping the policy of Brookville. On one hand, the Brookville took the restrictions seven years ago when the market’s situation and the consumers’ favor are both different from nowadays so that the restrictions might not be effective in Deer-heaven Acres. On the other hand, the location, designing style and houses’ qualities of the Deer-heaven Acres may also be different from the Brookville’s. Consequently we can deduce that even though the restrictions on landscaping and house’s painting promote the raise of property values in Brookville indeed, there is no guarantee it will be proved effective in deer-haven acres.

In conclusion, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the raise of property values and the adopting the set of restrictions. To strengthen the argument, the author also has to prove that the conditions of Deer-haven acres and Brookville are similar in every aspects

flyappleUID: 154698

我想说一下我的看法，我看了argument 精华区的一些东西，尤其是imong的关于论证深入的一些帖子，还有ets的六分范文，我觉得最重要的一项就是论证的展开，深入论证。
就拿你正文的第二段为例吧，On one hand, the Brookville took the restrictions seven years ago when the market’s situation and the consumers’ favor are both different from nowadays so that the restrictions might not be effective in Deer-heaven Acres. 如果你能把situation, and the favor of the consumers写的更细一些，比如：供求差别，收入差别，经济大环境的影响等等，文章会更出彩的。试着在你的那些陈述后面多一些深入具体的分析，会好很多的。看了ets对一篇4分作文的评价，特别指出了一个缺陷是"general statement", 就是把条陈一项项列出来，而当各位读者想深入体会其中缘由时，文章却没有了。因此，既然ets它老人家不好这口，我们文章就尽量避免，投其所好吧。On the other hand, the location, designing style and houses’ qualities of the Deer-heaven Acres may also be different from the Brookville’s. 这几点都很好，但是我还想知道这几点的不同究竟为什么会让同样的restriction在deer haven 有所差别呢？不用多，拿出一条仔细分析一下就可以了， 这样就不会有种隔靴搔痒的感觉了。
还想说一点，你第一段的理由我看了觉得好像有点论证的不太清楚，希望你再自习考虑下吧。
这是我的一点浅见，见笑了，不过真的很佩服你，一篇文章改了这么多遍，你很有毅力，我要向你学习。
我贴一篇我的argument 2你也批一下吧，我写的不很好