argument2高频，难题。 大家拍拍！

ChunyanLi2005UID: 2124266

Argument2  第14篇
  超时     434 words
------题目------
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.'
1。the committee has not demonstrated that these restrictions are the primary reasons for the raise in B's property values.
2。"seven years" . Will it still be popular today?
3。 restrictions feasible in B not means also feasible in D

------正文------
By showing the fact that Brookville(B) community adopted some restrictions seven years ago, and average property values have tripled in B, the committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres(D), suggests that DA should also adopt the similar restrictions like B. At the first glance, it seems reasonable, but with further consideration, we can easily find that it is not convincing for several reasons as follows.

First of all, the committee has failed to rule out that these restrictions are the primary reasons for the raise in B's property values. Only simply showing the fact that adopting certain restrictions and subsequently property values  tripled in B, the committee cannot indicate that the precious has result in the latter. Since no survey has been provided to show that the buyers are attracted by the landscaped yards and colors of the exteriors of homes in B, perhaps the rise of property values results from other reasons. For example, perhaps B  has developed a lot during these years, and many immigrants has moved there, which tripled the values of B's property. Or perhaps in order to increase tax, the government forced the rise in B's property values. Without ruling out other possible reasons, the committee cannot persuade us that set these series of restrictions has brought the rise.

Additionally, even if these restrictions adopted in seven years ago, are the main reasons for the rise in B's proper values, it is still feasible at present? It was such a long time since the restrictions adopted in B. Maybe people nowadays are tired of the forms of community, and they are more intending to buy more free type properties.  If so, still adopting these restrictions may no longer bring profits.

Last but not least, even if the restrictions are still feasible in B today, the committee made a unsubstantial assumption that these restrictions will also work on in D. Without any comparison between these two areas, we do not know what are the similarities and difference between them. While, if the condition in B varies greatly from that in D, it will probably cause a lot of loss to D. Obviously, it is very possible that the transpotation or the terrain in D is not convinient for people to travel, which may make people dislike to live in D. It is also possible that there is a distinction between those people living in B and people in D. People in B are more likely living in unity forms while people in D like living in colorful and various type of houses. All of these may result in the restrictions will not bring benefit to D.

To sum up, the committee's conclusion is not substantial as it stands. Without any evidence to show that these certain restrictions have brought the rise in B's property values and any information about the similarities between B and D, we can find that how groundless the conmmittee's suggestion is.

[ 本帖最后由 ChunyanLi2005 于 2006-2-13 17:28 编辑 ]

dinddind2003UID: 196353

By showing the fact that Brookville(B) community adopted some restrictions seven years ago, and average property values have tripled in B, the committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres(D), suggests that DA should also adopt the similar restrictions like B. At the first glance, it seems reasonable, but with further consideration, we can easily find that there are many flaws in the letter.

First of all, the committee has not demonstrated that these restrictions are the primary reasons for the raise in B's property values. Only simply showing the fact that adopting certain restrictions and subsequently property values  tripled in B, the committee cannot indicate that the precious has result in the latter. Since he has not provided any survey to the buyers on the questions like what they are attracted by the property in B, it is possible that B  has developed a lot, and many immigrants has moved there. (感觉你这段重点讲的是作者哪里哪里没做好，其实argu应该重点说作者哪里哪里证明错了，所以我认为你应该把possible展开，看看范文和寄托里的优秀习作就知道了)

Additionally, even if these restrictions adopted in seven years ago, are the main reasons for the rise in B's proper value, it is still feasible at present? It was such a long time since the restrictions adopted in B. Maybe people nowadays are tired of the forms of community, and they are more intending to buy more free type properties.  If so, still adopting these restrictions may no longer bring profits.

Last but not least, even if the restrictions are still feasible in B today, the committee made a unsubstantial assumption that these restrictions will also work on in D. Without any comparison between these two areas, we do not know what are the similarities and difference between them. If these two areas are very alike, maybe the committess' suggestion can work（if的这句话没有用，如果觉得时间紧就删了）. While, if to the contrary, it will probably cause a lot of loss to D. Obviously, it is very possible that the transpotation is not convinient or the terrain in D for people to travel, which may make people dislike to live in D. It is also possible that there is a distinction between those people living in B and people in D. People in B are more likely living in unity forms while people in D like living in colorful and various type of houses. All of these may result in the restrictions will not bring benefit to D.

To sum up, the committee's conclusion is not substantial as it stands. Without any evidence to show that these certain restrictions have brought the rise in B's property values and any information about the similarities between B and D, we can find that how groundless the conmmittee's suggestion is.

个人感觉argu应该多说些It is possible… 而不是the author should…,这两者在比重上应该有明显的差别

ChunyanLi2005UID: 2124266