argument2 FLY AW第七次作业

exp03UID: 2158827

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 letter, the committee hold the opinion that Deehaven Acres should learn landscaping and unification painting from nearby Brookville community to increase property values. The conclusion reached in this letter is invalid and probably misleading.

From the letter, no other information is given to support that the property values raise in Brookville is only because landscaping and painting the area. The local government may also do other works, for example fetching in companies, to get this effect.

The major problem with the letter is that no state similarity between the two communities is provided to support the conclusion that Deerhaven Acres will raise property values similar to Brookville’s. We never know whether the geographical conditions are the same in these two areas. Different environments are proper to different community programming. People may not importune changing a forest like area to a tidy garden that will decrease the characteristic instead of raise property values. On the other hand, without considering the initiative value of the communities how can we get the conclusion that the property will raise after landscaping and painting? The price of Deerhaven Acres may be really higher than other areas and can not change only by little external ornament.

Otherwise, the committee oversimplifies the community constructing to raise property values and ignores the feeling of the homeowners. People may prefer living in their favorable ways but not living in the homes look like the same. If the homeowners not love their living condition after landscaping and painting in same way, how could an area increases the property values?

To conclude, this letter is not persuasive as it stands. Before the homeowners accept the suggestion, the committee must present more facts to demonstrate that building changing will really make more benefits to the Deerhaven Acres.

字数：297 我怎么越写越少了……

zqznedUID: 2114587

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 letter, the committee hold the opinion that Deehaven Acres should learn landscaping and unification painting（？） from nearby Brookville community to increase property values. The conclusion reached in this letter is invalid and probably misleading.

From the letter, no other information is given to support that the property values raise in Brookville is only because landscaping and painting the area. The local government may also do other works, for example fetching in companies, to get this effect.（应该多说一些，把这展开）

The major problem with the letter is that no state similarity between the two communities is provided to support the conclusion that Deerhaven Acres will raise property values similar to Brookville’s. We never know whether the geographical conditions are the same in these two areas. Different environments are proper to different community programming. People may not importune changing a forest like area to a tidy garden that will decrease the characteristic instead of raise property values. On the other hand, without considering the initiative value of the communities how can we get the conclusion that the property will raise after landscaping and painting? The price of Deerhaven Acres may be really higher than other areas and can not change only by little external ornament.

Otherwise, the committee oversimplifies the community constructing to raise property values and ignores the feeling of the homeowners. People may prefer living in their favorable ways but not living in the homes look like the same. If the homeowners not love their living condition after landscaping and painting in same way, how could an area increases the property values?

To conclude, this letter is not persuasive as it stands. Before the homeowners accept the suggestion, the committee must present more facts to demonstrate that building changing will really make more benefits to the Deerhaven Acres.
思路可以，可是写得确实有点少，可以把有些段展开来说，譬如第二段。
要是实在觉得少，开头结尾按那种转述的来写也行

exp03UID: 2158827

In this letter, the committee hold the opinion that Deehaven Acres should learn landscaping and unification coloring from nearby Brookville community to increase property values. The conclusion reached in this letter is invalid and probably misleading.

From the letter, no other information is given to support that the property values raise in Brookville is only because landscaping and painting the area. Form the normal economic view, with the time going on the property of an area must increase with local economic increase. After seven years developing, Broodville community may be changed from a villige to a economic center, so the triple of the property value is understandable that not cause by construction. father more, the local government may also do other works, for example improving public security, to get this effect.

The major problem with the letter is that no state similarity between the two communities is provided to support the conclusion that Deerhaven Acres will raise property values similar to Brookville’s. We never know whether the geographical conditions are the same in these two areas. Different environments are proper to different community programming. People may not importune changing a forest like area to a tidy garden that will decrease the characteristic instead of raise property values. On the other hand, without considering the initiative value of the communities how can we get the conclusion that the property will raise after landscaping and painting? The price of Deerhaven Acres may be really higher than other areas and can not change only by little external ornament.

Otherwise, the committee oversimplifies the community constructing to raise property values and ignores the feeling of the homeowners. People may prefer living in their favorable ways but not living in the homes look like the same. If the homeowners not love their living condition after landscaping and painting in same way, how could an area increases the property values?

To conclude, this letter is not persuasive as it stands. Before the homeowners accept the suggestion, the committee must present more facts to demonstrate that building changing will really make more benefits to the Deerhaven Acres.

honeyviolaUID: 2199703

第二段还是可以把做法展开的,其他组员的好像都展开说明了.而且尽量避免相同的举例和猜测,我觉得多些其他观点更好些
最后一个观点挺新颖的.:)

[ 本帖最后由 honeyviola 于 2006-6-2 10:46 编辑 ]