argument2 我的第1篇ARGU,来帮我改改呀!

张雄华UID: 2154847

2.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."



七年前，附近的Brookville社区的业主实施了一系列关于该社区的庭院应如何布置以及房屋应涂何种颜色的规定。从那以后，Brookville的地产平均价格翻了三番。为使Deerhaven Acres的地产升值，我们也应该对于景观和房屋涂色实施自己的规定。


提纲:
1. .作者没有提供证据说明产地价格升三倍一定是改变外观的结果，可能是别的措施
2. 7年的时间,人们可能从注重外表变到关注别的方面
3. 两地情况不一样
ARGUMENT 2
In this argument, the committee recommends that in order to raise Deerhaven (D) property values, homeowners should adopt a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. The committee should also provide some evidences to support the conclusion. At a first glance, the argument is logical, however, the committee omits some significant factors.

The argument assumed that the merely reason to the Brookville (B) community’s average property values rise is that they adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, but it may be net the case. There are various of crucial factors affecting property value, such as environment, safety of the community, of course containing landscaping and housepainting. Comprehensive analysis is necessary to identify the actual cause of the increase in B property values. It is entirely possible that a new athletic field built in B at the same when they adopted the restriction on landscaping and housepainting. The new athletic field is the real reason for the increase in B property values. The committee fails to consider and rule out other factors that might account for the increase in B property value.

Even assuming the increase in B property value is attributing to the implement of the restriction, the time was seven years ago, it is a long time, many tings have changed a lot. Perhaps include the potential D homebuyers’ interest. It is more likely that the potential homebuyers preferred excellent landscaping and housepainting to other elements seven years ago, but now, they are more interested in environment. If so, it is less useful to adopt the similar restriction.

Admittedly, B and D are two different places. The committee can not assume that what resulted in rising property values in B would bring about the same result in D. because it is equally possible that the two communities have different geographical location and different serving facilities, which are very important to property value. For example, there is a beautiful lake in D community, and all houses are around it. Many potential homebuyers enjoyed this harmonious landscaping. If the committee adopts a set of restriction to change the landscaping, it certainly destroys the harmony, and therefore makes the D property values decrease contrary.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it the committee must rule out all other possible reasons for the increase of property values in B, and must show that potential homebuyers are still attaching important to landscaping and housepainting. The committee must also provide the evident that the factors affecting property values in these two communities except landscaping and housepainting are essentially the same.

[ 本帖最后由 张雄华 于 2006-3-13 13:42 编辑 ]

张雄华UID: 2154847

怎么没人帮我看看呢