0606G同主题写作第十二期——Argument2

张雄华UID: 2154847

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
帮我改改
第一篇,呵呵.很烂

imkrisUID: 2164272

syllabus:
1.post hoc, ergo propter hoc
2.all things are equal
3.false analogy

thanks if u stop by and take a look of my argumentation

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D103

[ 本帖最后由 imkris 于 2006-3-14 20:34 编辑 ]

lyniayanUID: 2164812

留链互拍！！有自己修改和总结的内容https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

abramboyUID: 2172023

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D103

提纲：
1、在Brookville的规定在这七年间的执行情况
2、他因造成涨价
3、不同地区不能类比

sunjiezhixinUID: 2131686

我的第一篇AW，写了两天：（
大家能告诉我的水平到底如何吗？离要求还差多远？

提纲：
1、指名论点错误之处。
2、细分论点的谬误之处：七年之前的做法未必适合现在；是不是真的因为规划一样才涨价；同样的风格是不是全部业主都能接受，完全照搬别人的做法是否可确保自己有同样的收益等等。
3、真正影响房屋价格的因素：基础设施、交通、学校、商店、地段、治安、整个经济环境，自己的特色等等。
4、小结：应整体考虑，而不是单凭片面就跟风，反而失去了自我，因该根据自己的优势和劣势制定自己的方案，提高小区综合整体水平。

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D4

[ 本帖最后由 sunjiezhixin 于 2006-3-16 07:56 编辑 ]

zj832001UID: 2196469

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1


我的第一篇ARGU


新手.....欢迎大家拍拍...必回
1.类比错误
2.因果错误
3.从过去推未来...

neuwolfUID: 2190099

提纲：1、质疑调整的必要性和可行性
      2、错误类比，其中包含了对Brookville是否因为restriction而房价增长的怀疑
      3、列举其他可能的措施去push房价

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

clearriverUID: 2189101

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 the argument, the arguer contends that the Deerhaven Acres should adopt their set of restrictions on landscaping and housepaniting in order to increase the property values. To substantiate the statement, the arguer cites the dubious evidence that the average property values in the Brookville which adopt the restrictions increased three times in the seven years ago. On the surface, the argument appears to somewhat logical, but after a careful weighting on the mind, we find that the argument suffers several fallacies as following.

To begin with that the arguer does not tell us any information about the case in the Deerhaven Acres, whether the average property values increase or decrease in the past seven years, if increase, how many times does it increase? If the increase level in the Deerhaven Acres is bigger than three times, the Deerhaven Acres need not to adopt the steps used in the B region. But in fact, the arguer does not do any compare.

Further more, is the increase in the B area caused by the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting? There may be some other reasons, if there is an industry park which was founded in the past seven years, there is not doubt that the price in the Brookville will increase whether there are restrictions on the landscaping and housepainting. In face, if there are not any restrictions in the Brookville area, there will be more people who are willing to reside in the B region and the average will increase than three times.

The last but not the least, the arguer does give us any information about the case in B community in seven years ago. If seven years ago the B region was just a new community, they could adopt the restrictions because the buildings were being built or had not built. But the Deerhaven Acres is mature community and most of the buildings have been completed, then no one is willing to change the house which will cost a lot of money. So some residents may have to transfer to other community if the Deerhaven Acres community will adopt the restrictions and the average price will decrease rather than increase. The arguer does not give any suggestions of the citizens who have been in the community.
To sum up, from the above discussion, we can know that the conclusion reached at the argument lacks credibility since the evidence listed in the analysis by the arguer do not lend strong support to that the arguer claims. To enable us to convince the statement, the arguer should provide more information to explain the above dubious points. To better evaluate the conclusion, we need more concrete data and evidence that can strong support the result; otherwise the conclusion is logically unacceptable.

JohnmaxWongUID: 2150536

1。other possible reasons to the increase in Brookville
2。the argument is based on a false analogy
3.从过去不能推知现在和将来
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

sunny100UID: 2138484

提纲：
1 房价上涨与restriction不一定有关 忽略它因
2两个城市的不可比
3restriction有可能使人们离开

文章在这里
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

欢迎大家来拍萨~~~~~有拍必回~~~~~~

barbi918UID: 2142205

今天写的，才242字，我不想考了。。。但是很痛苦
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1