argument2[加洲阳光]第一次作业

tcemilyUID: 2164170

第一次的ARGUMENT,请各位指教!:handshake

提纲：
1、        新措施不是造成涨价的原因
2、        即使是原因，也不是唯一原因
3、        即使是唯一原因，不能忽略两地差异。
In this argument, the arguer recommends that people in Deerhaven Acres should adopt the set of restriction on landscaping and house painting. To support this conclusion the arguer cites the point that since the homeowner in Brookville community adopted the set, their average property values have tripled. As is stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.
First of all, the arguer assumes that it was the set of restriction caused the values increasing in Brookville. But the former fails to substantiate the later. For example, perhaps the increasing money value is the cause of these events or perhaps the increment is caused by the decrease of the amount of houses.
Secondly, even if the Brookville’s raising property values are attributable to the set of restrictions, the arguer commit a fallacy of hasty generalization. It is highly possible other factors may have contributed to the results. For instance, the government promulgates a new policy that encourages people to live in Brookville to develop the, economy there. After all, triple values of the property were not a small amount of money; it cannot be increase just because of one reason. Timing and chance are two important things in increment. If you miss such kind of things, you won’t get the result you want. Unless the arguer present the evidence that Deerhaven Acres will have the same timing and chance, I cannot accept the arguer’s recommendation that Deerhaven Acres follow Brookville’s example.
Even assuming that the set of restrictions was the only reason caused the raising property values in Brookville; the argument neglected the difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres. If homeowners in Deerhaven do the same thing to their houses, maybe the results they get are contrary. For instance, on the condition that the homebuyers in Deerhaven interest in the inner facilities of a house rather than its exterior appearance, or they don’t like the luxurious appearance at all, adopting the same restriction will make the value in Deerhaven even lower. Without considering the dissimilarities, the arguer cannot come to the conclusion that adopting the same restriction would bring about the same result in Deerhaven.
In conclusion, the arguer’s recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it the arguer must provide better evidence that the set of restrictions on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted---and not some other reasons ---made the average property values tripled. Besides, the responsibility of the two places is needed to be known. I would also need to thoroughly compare Brookville with Deerhaven Acres ---especially in terms of the factors which response to the property values ---to determine whether the same course of action that appear to have raised the Brookville’s property values would also raised the Deerhaven’s property values.

riverwUID: 2199459

提纲：
1、        新措施不是造成涨价的原因
2、        即使是原因，也不是唯一原因
3、        即使是唯一原因，不能忽略两地差异。

In this argument, the arguer recommends that people in Deerhaven Acres should adopt the (a) set of restriction on landscaping and house painting (to raise their property values). To support this conclusion (the recommendation) the arguer cites the point (evidence) that since the homeowner in Brookville community adopted the set, their average property values have tripled. As is (it) stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

First of all, the arguer (unreasonably) assumes that it was the set of restriction caused the values increasing in Brookville (我认为be句型显得生硬，应少用：the arguer unreasonably assumes that the average property values tripled  in Brookville because  people there have adopted  such a set of restriction.). But the former fails to substantiate the later (former and later指代什么?). For example, perhaps the increasing money value is the cause of these events or perhaps the increment is caused by the decrease of the amount of houses(这里应发挥想象，多写一点).

Secondly, even if the Brookville’s raising property values are attributable to the set of restrictions, the arguer commit (commits) a fallacy of hasty generalization. It is highly possible that other factors may (might) have contributed to the results. For instance, the government promulgates a new policy that encourages (encouraging) people to live in Brookville to develop the, economy there. After all, triple values of the property were not a small amount of money; it cannot be increase just because of one reason. Timing and chance are two important things in increment. If you miss such kind of things, you won’t get the result you want. Unless the arguer present the evidence that Deerhaven Acres will have the same timing and chance as Brookville, I cannot accept the arguer’s recommendation that Deerhaven Acres follow Brookville’s example (孙远先生似乎说过argument里边要避免使用第一人称).

Even assuming that the set of restrictions was the only reason caused the raising property values in Brookville (供参考: why the average property values increased); the argument neglected (neglects) the difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres. If homeowners in Deerhaven do the same thing to their houses, maybe the results they get are contrary. For instance, on the condition that the homebuyers in Deerhaven interest in the inner facilities of a house rather than its exterior appearance, or they don’t like the luxurious appearance at all, adopting the same restriction will make the value in Deerhaven even lower. Without considering the dissimilarities, the arguer cannot come to the conclusion that adopting the same restriction would bring about the same result in Deerhaven.

In conclusion, the arguer’s recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it the arguer must provide better evidence that the set of restrictions on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted---and not some other reasons ---made the average property values tripled (这是第一个分论点讨论的内容，在第2段写出来比较好). Besides, the responsibility of the two places is needed to be known. I would also need to thoroughly compare Brookville with Deerhaven Acres ---especially in terms of the factors which response to the property values ---to determine whether the same course of action that appear to have raised the Brookville’s property values would also raised the Deerhaven’s property values.
最后一段总结，应该简短有力。你写得太细了，反而是在说理。


总结：
1. 段落之间空1行吧；
2. 论述的各个段落之间的过渡不错；
3. 句子语法错误有点多，比如时态错误、从句主语误用、偶尔有从句的结构混乱；
4. 说理还是不够完整、透彻，努力改进哦；
5. 你的一些句子意思表达不完整，可能思维有跳跃性，跟我一样，呵呵；
6. 如有批得不当之处，请谅解。