argument 2 by jetflame [Flamy July互改小组]

jetflameUID: 206544

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 377          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-7-3

In this letter, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres suggests to all homeowners that they should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To support this suggestion, the committee points out that since nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions the property values there have been tripled. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the committee fails to convince us that there exists causal relationship between the rise of property values and the set of restrictions on the  landscape and exterior color. Perhaps Brookville is a small area which has more beautiful sightseeing and houses are of the similar type which makes it easy to uniform. Another possible reason is that Brookville has more convenient traffic system and much time can be saved on the road so that the property values rise. In a word, without showing that it is the restrictions which raise the value of property, the argument can not be decided.

Secondly, given that restrictions on landscape and exterior color make the property values rise, the argument overlooks the distinctness between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres. Maybe Deerhaven Acres is much larger than Brookville and types of houses vary. So that it is both impossible and unpleasant if all houses there have the same landscape and color. And that will be helpless to the rise of values, or even do harm to.

Lastly, even assuming that the conditions are similar both in Deerhaven Acres and in Brookville, the committee fails to consider the different time which will weaken the effect of the same set of restrictions. Without more compelling evidences, it is entirely possible that people now have a very different idea about what is more suitable for living than seven years ago. It is also possible that in contemporary society people emphasize more on individuality. As a result, much resistance will be encountered when such restrictions are adopted.

In sum, the suggestion is logically flawed, thus it is unacceptable as it stands. To be more convincing, the committee should rule out all possible alternatives, and give more detail exactly on how such restrictions will raise the property values in today's Deerhaven Acre.

linxzUID: 2225479

In this letter, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres suggests to all homeowners that they suggest that all homeowners should..更简捷should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To support this suggestion, the committee points out that since nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions the property values there have been tripled. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the committee fails to convince us that there exists causal relationship between the rise of property values and the set of restrictions on the  landscape and exterior colo既然是causal，是否reason在前，result在后更好r. Perhaps Brookville is a small area which has more beautiful sightseeing and houses are of the similar type which makes it easy to uniform这个理由是不是应该放到第二点. Another possible reason is that Or perphapsBrookville has more convenient traffic system and much time can be saved on the road so that the property values rise. In a word, without showing that it is the restrictions which raise the value of property, the argument can not be decideddecided?.

Secondly, given that restrictions on landscape and exterior color make the property values rise, the argument overlooks the distinctness between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres. Maybe Deerhaven Acres is much larger than Brookville and types of houses vary. So that it is both impossible and unpleasant if all houses there have the same landscape and color. And that will be helpless to the rise of values, or even do harm to.

Lastly, even assuming that the conditions are similar both in Deerhaven Acres and in Brookville, the committee fails to consider the different time which will weaken the effect of the same set of restrictions. Without more compelling evidences, it is entirely possible that people now have a very different idea about what is more suitable for living than seven years ago. It is also possible that in contemporary society people emphasize more on individuality. As a result, much resistance will be encountered when such restrictions are adopted.nice!

In sum, the suggestion is logically flawed, thus it is unacceptable as it stands. To be more convincing, the committee should rule out all possible alternatives, and give more details exactly on how such restrictions will raise the property values in today's Deerhaven Acre.


结构很清晰，论点也没有问题，这点我要向你学习了：）
有的语言还需要在锻炼中提高，加油

ps:你的帖子题目格式不对，'argument2' 不要空格

我的同主题文章在
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

Ray8511UID: 2136594

In this letter, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres suggests to all homeowners that they should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To support this suggestion, the committee points out that since nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions the property values there have been tripled. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the committee fails to convince us that there exists causal relationship between the rise of property values and the set of restrictions on the  landscape and exterior color. Perhaps Brookville is a small area which has more beautiful sightseeing and houses are of the similar type which makes it easy to uniform. Another possible reason is that Brookville has more convenient traffic system and much time can be saved on the road so that the property values rise. In a word, without showing that it is the restrictions which raise the value of property, the argument can not be decided. is unwarantted

Secondly, given that restrictions on landscape and exterior color make the property values riseeven conceding the causal relationshiop between the trstriction and value increasement, the argument overlooks the distinctness between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres. Maybe Deerhaven Acres is much larger than Brookville and types of houses vary. So that it is both impossible and unpleasant if all houses there have the same landscape and color. And that will be helpless to the rise of values, or even do harm to. 应该直接点出commit a  false analoge
Lastly, even assuming that the conditions are similar both in Deerhaven Acres and in Brookville, the committee fails to consider the different time circumstance changes happended during the past time which will weaken the effect of the same set of restrictions. Without more compelling evidences, it is entirely possible that people now have a very different idea about what is more suitable for living than seven years ago. It is also possible that in contemporary society people emphasize more on individuality. As a result, much resistance will be encountered when such restrictions are adopted.

In sum, the suggestion is logically flawed, thus it is unacceptable as it stands. To be more convincing, the committee should rule out all possible alternatives, and give more detail exactly on how such restrictions will raise the property values in today's Deerhaven Acre.

多看些范文吧。要多批出几个错误，比如楼上那位的经济方面的原因，还有 未必这个区的居住的人想让房子升值，因为居住的人都是租房的，升值了房主要涨；或者这边是要拆的。一篇ARGUE至少要找四个错，否则字数不够