arguement 2 请多指教

leezedUID: 195039

the author recommends that in order to increase the values of property in Deerhaven Acres,they are supposed to adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and  housepainting which was adopted in nearby Brookville community seven years ago.The author also claims that since the restriction was adopted in Brookville,the average property values there have tripled .I find the letter logically unconvincing in several respects.
To begin with,it is falsely assumed in the letter that the increasement of the average property values in Brookvile was caused by the adoption of a set of restrictions which involved in landscaping and housepainting in the community.It is possible that other possiblities result in the raise of property values.Maybe in these years Brookville has made so great a progress in estate that the values of property there increase with it.Or perhaps the community was largely developped by the government and then many investments have been put into the area.As a result,the values raise naturely.So without ruling out all other possible explanations the author cannot convince me that the restrictions would lead to that increasement .
Moreover,even if the assumption above is true,because the restriction was adopted seven years ago,it is a question that it would have the similar effectiveness now .As many things might have been happened since seven years ago,it is entirely possible that commercial condition and government policy has changed greatly.In the case , we cannot conclude that the means which is suitable  seven years ago can be put in use today.
Even if the time is  not a problem, the author's claim that the set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting should be adopted in Deerhaven Acres is unwarranted. Deerhaven Acres might differ from Brookville in ways that would undermine the effectiveness of application of the restriction in Deerhaven Acres.Perhaps the citizens in Deerhaven tend to be extremely individual or impersonal.They do not like to be refrained by others.If so ,the plan would not be widely supported by people there and then it would be abortive.In the case ,the restriction that is effective in Brookville might be far less effective in Deerhaven Acres.
To  conslude,the author in the letter has made a few logical fallacies ,which render the argument wholly unpersuasive.To bolster the letter’s recommendation the author must provide the clear evidences that there is no other possibities except the restriction that was responsible for the raise of average property values and that the application is similar effective in Deerhaven Acres. The author also must provise the evidence that the seven –year time should be ignorant.

leezedUID: 195039

顶

leezedUID: 195039

顶

朽木白哉UID: 195804

首先。。。
标点有严重问题~ 还有拼写~
先贴到word上看下~

第一段第二句可以不要~

总的思路很清楚~
如果是限时的 就很不错！

我水平有限。。=[]=
看不出其他什么了啦~

帮你啊扑

朽木白哉UID: 195804

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=205828
可以参考一下

ponponUID: 181304

theThe author recommends that in order to increase the values of property in Deerhaven Acres,they are supposed to adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting which was adopted in nearby Brookville community seven years ago.The author also claims that since the restriction was adopted in Brookville,the average property values there have tripled .I find the letter logically去掉 unconvincing in several respects.
To begin with,it is falselyinproperly,falsely过于肯定 assumed in the letter that the increasement of the average property values in Brookvile was caused by the adoption of a set of restrictions which involved in landscaping and housepainting in the community.It is possible that other possiblities result in the raise of property values.Maybe in these years Brookville has made so great a progress in estate that the values of property there increase with it.Or perhaps the community was largely developped by the government and then many investments have been put into the area.As a result,the values raise naturely.So without ruling out all other possible explanations the author cannot convince me that the restrictions would lead to that increasement .
Moreover,even if the assumption above is true,because the restriction was adopted seven years ago,it is a questiondoubt that it would have the similar effectiveness now .As many things might have been happened since seven years ago,it is entirely possible that commercial condition and government policy has changed greatly.In the case , we cannot conclude that the means which is suitable seven years ago can be put in use today.
Even if the time is not a problem, the author's claim that the set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting should be adopted in Deerhaven Acres is unwarranted. Deerhaven Acres might differ from Brookville in ways that would undermine the effectiveness of application of the restriction in Deerhaven Acres.Perhaps the citizens in Deerhaven tend to be extremely individual or impersonal.They do not like to be refrained by others.If so ,the plan would not be widely supported by people there and then it would be abortive.In the case ,the restriction that is effective in Brookville might be far less effective in Deerhaven Acres.
To conslude,the author in the letter has made a few logical fallacies ,which render the argument wholly unpersuasive.To bolster the letter’s recommendation the author must provide the clear evidences that there is no other possibities except the restriction that was responsible for the raise of average property values and that the application is similar effective in Deerhaven Acres. The author also must proviseprovide the evidence that the seven –year time should be ignorant.
段与段之间的衔接值得向你学习，但是正如上面说得，很多地方需要改进，建议你再修改一下， 还有可能的词语还有比如likely, probably, conceivable!

希望你可以对我的文章大加批评！

ponponUID: 181304

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=250073

leezedUID: 195039

谢谢大家 可为何你们给的地址我进不去啊

leezedUID: 195039

贴到word上怎么什么都看不出来啊？？？望指教？