argument2 加州阳光第1次作业, 望各位高手不吝赐教:)

timboyUID: 193944

"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."
限制对房产升值有作用吗?(B) 错误关系
限制对房产升值有作用吗?(DA)错误类比
数字3倍对DA有意义吗?数字缺陷

The argument is well presented but is not well supported. By making a comparison between Brookville community (B) and Deerhaven Acres (DA)，the argument claimed that the adoption of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will raise the property. Despite the provided reasonable argument, the whole article has some critical defects as follows.

To begin with, the rise of the property value may not necessarily due to the restriction. Though the rise of value happened after the restriction, but these two issues may have little or even no relationship. No evidence is provided that the rise of values attributed to the restriction rather than the other possibilities.  Perhaps the rise of the property value was caused by the rise of value of land. Or perhaps the rise was due to the increasing economy of the whole community. Without excluding these possibilities and providing more details about the relation between the rise of property value and the set of restrictions, the contribution of restrictions to the rise of property value is doubted.

Even if the only cause of rise of property value was the restrictions in B, we still cannot conclude that if DA adopted this approach in B, DA will surely raise the values of property. Since the argument gives no evidence of the real defects that DA needs to improve, hasty simulation from B cannot promise the rise of value in DA. It is entirely possible that the restriction may have nothing to do with the rise of the property values in DA. Maybe the improvement of the focus should be the limitation of the rise of building materials, or perhaps be the development of whole economy. In order to convince us that the restriction is truly effective, the author should provide believable evidence to prove that the restriction on landscaping and housepainting is really needed by DA.

In addition, the average property value increase may not adequate convincing to support the conclusion. The author only mentions the values have tripled but fails to mention the original value of property. It is much possible that the original value in B is much less compared with the value in DA. As a result, the increase does not necessarily happen in DA.

In conclusion, the argument is logically defective and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide evidence to promise the causal relation between the restriction on landscaping and housepainting and the rise of property values. In addition, the real defects to affect the rise of values of property and also compare the original values of DA and B to make sure the restriction can really bring the rise of property values.

[ 本帖最后由 timboy 于 2006-7-2 12:06 编辑 ]

timboyUID: 193944

自己顶一下

chengnicoleUID: 2216897

我只有两个小问题，
1）To begin with, the rise of the property value may not necessarily due to the restriction. 建议在开头的时候，还是将the restriction on landscaping and housepainting完整表述，显得更严密。
2）第三点，It is much possible that the original value in B is much less compared with the value in DA. As a result, the increase does not necessarily happen in DA. 这两句好像并没有因果关系阿，基数大小有差异不一定可以证明增值不能实现啊。

我选择强调七年前的经验不一定有参考价值，切磋一下？
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 chengnicole 于 2006-7-2 20:56 编辑 ]

timboyUID: 193944

谢谢chengnicole的评论，请问一下这样辩如何：b房地产的价格变化后仍然很小（和DA相比），所以B的价格变化对DA没有吸引力。这个论据不能让人信服
期待大家的指教：）

leaf99UID: 2174003

"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."
限制对房产升值有作用吗?(B) 错误关系
限制对房产升值有作用吗?(DA)错误类比
数字3倍对DA有意义吗?数字缺陷

The argument is well presented but is（去掉） not well supported. By making a comparison between Brookville community (B) and Deerhaven Acres (DA)，the argument claimed that the adoption of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will raise the property（时态上不统一）. Despite the provided reasonable argument, the whole article has（suffers from更好） some critical defects as follows.

To begin with, the rise of the property value may not necessarily due to the restriction. Though the rise of value happened after the restriction, but(小心，though..but这是明显错误！) these two issues may have little or even no relationship. No evidence is provided that the rise of values attributed to the restriction rather than the other possibilities.  Perhaps the rise of the property value was caused by the rise of value of land. Or perhaps the rise was due to the increasing（growing,iincreasing指数量增加） economy of the whole community. Without excluding these possibilities and providing（歧义，without providing?） more details about the relation between the rise of property value and the set of restrictions, the contribution of restrictions to the rise of property value is doubted.

Even if the only cause of rise of property value was the restrictions in B, we still cannot conclude that if DA adopted this approach in B, DA will surely raise the values of property. Since the argument gives no evidence of the real defects that DA needs to improve(improve defects?), hasty simulation from B cannot promise the rise of value in DA. It is entirely possible that the restriction may have nothing to do with the rise of the property values in DA. Maybe the improvement of the focus should be the limitation of the rise of building materials, or perhaps be the development of whole economy. In order to convince us that the restriction is truly effective, the author should provide believable evidence to prove that the restriction on landscaping and housepainting is really needed by DA.

In addition, the average property value increase may not adequate convincing to support the conclusion. The author only mentions the values have tripled but fails to mention the original value of property. It is much possible that the original value in B is much less compared with the value in DA. As a result, the increase does not necessarily happen in DA. 这一点你没有仔细说清楚，还需要加强笔墨；而且TS不达意

In conclusion, the argument is logically defective and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide evidence to promise the causal relation between the restriction on landscaping and housepainting and the rise of property values(到底是between *and *?). In addition, the real defects to affect the rise of values of property and also compare the original values of DA and B to make sure the restriction can really bring the rise of property values.

总体：语言上需要再加工，多用formal written words.基本批判还可以，可新的观点更应该多写，毕竟别人没有提到。