Argument2 [0610G我的九月小组]第三十一次作业

maggie-leeUID: 2220892

题目：ARGUMENT 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."
字数：387  (488)        用时：0:30:00          日期：2006-8-29

The author of the letter advocates that the homeowners of the Deerhaven Acres should adopt some set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting so that property values of the local area could increase as expected. To justify the advocate, the author cites the successful experience of a neighboring community named Brookville. And the author embraces the idea that the same is true for Deerhaven Acres. The argument in the letter sounds logical at the first glance, however close scrutiny reveals that the evidence does not lend a credible support to the advocate as it stands.

First and foremost, the author unfairly assumes that the increase of the property values in Brookville is attributed to the restriction on landscaping and housepainting. It is totally possible that the two things just happened simultaneously without any causal relationship at all. Further, the rise of the property values is resulted by other potential alternatives. Such factors include the economic development in Brookville, the booming of tourism, and the amelioration of living environment there and so forth. For instance, in the past few years, the spectacular progress in economy leads to the booming of Business and commercial activities in Brookville, which ultimately raise the estate price. As a result, the boom of land market has nothing to do with the regulations on landscaping and housepainting. Or probably the living environment of the local area has been improved significantly and consequently more people are attracted to live in Brookville which promotes the property value finally. In short, a plenty of other factors might contribute to the rising of property values in Brookville and the author should not make assumptions without sufficient evidence.

Secondly, even assuming that the increase in property values in Brookville is due to restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, no detailed and thorough comparison is made between the Brookville and Deerhaven Acres to ensure that the same measure would be effective to Deerhaven Acres. It is possible that the two areas are totally distinctive and different; hence the same measure could not be applied in both occasions. Perhaps, Brookville community's main industry is tourism; therefore the plan and regulation on landscaping could help attract more tourists for sightseeing. And possibly the same is not true for Deerhaven Acres. If the Deerhaven Acres is just a common area without those features, chances are that those restrictions do not help the Brookville to arise property values. Consequently, without thorough analysis concerning the characteristics of the two areas, the author should not easily come to the conclusion the successful experience could be copied.

To sum up, the authors fails to come up with sufficient and convincing evidence to substantiate the credibility of the advocate. For a stronger and more acceptable advocate, the author should rule out the other possibility which might result in the success of Brookville and put forward more evidence to justify that the same measure could be applied in Deerhaven Acres successfully.

lanyelovemeUID: 2234077

The author of the letter advocates that the homeowners of the Deerhaven Acres should adopt some set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting so that property values of the local area could increase as expected. To justify the advocate(advocacy), the author cites the successful experience of a neighboring community named Brookville. And the author embraces the idea that the same is true for Deerhaven Acres. The argument in the letter sounds logical at the first glance, however close scrutiny reveals that the evidence does not lend a credible support to the advocate(advocacy) as it stands.

First and foremost, the author unfairly assumes that the increase of the property values in Brookville is attributed to the restriction on landscaping and housepainting. It is totally possible that the two things just happened simultaneously without any causal relationship at all. Further, the rise of the property values is resulted by other potential alternatives. Such factors include the economic development in Brookville, the booming of tourism, and the amelioration of living environment there and so forth. For instance, in the past few years, the spectacular progress in economy leads to the booming of Business and commercial activities in Brookville, which ultimately raise the estate price. As a result, the boom of land market has nothing to do with the regulations on landscaping and housepainting. Or probably the living environment of the local area has been improved significantly and consequently more people are attracted to live in Brookville which promotes the property value finally. In short, a plenty of other factors might contribute to the rising of property values in Brookville and the author should not make assumptions without sufficient evidence.

Secondly, even assuming that the increase in property values in Brookville is due to restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, no detailed and thorough comparison is made between the Brookville and Deerhaven Acres to ensure that the same measure would be effective to Deerhaven Acres. It is possible that the two areas are totally distinctive and different; hence the same measure could not be applied in both occasions. Perhaps, Brookville community's main industry is tourism; therefore the plan and regulation on landscaping could help attract more tourists for sightseeing. And possibly the same is not true for Deerhaven Acres. If the Deerhaven Acres is just a common area without those features, chances are that those restrictions do not help the Brookville to arise property values. Consequently, without thorough analysis concerning the characteristics of the two areas, the author should not easily come to the conclusion the successful experience could be copied.

To sum up, the authors fails to come up with sufficient and convincing evidence to substantiate the credibility of the advocate. For a stronger and more acceptable advocate, the author should rule out the other possibility which might result in the success of Brookville and put forward more evidence to justify that the same measure could be applied in Deerhaven Acres successfully.

不是一般要挑出3个吗？

[ 本帖最后由 lanyeloveme 于 2006-8-30 10:39 编辑 ]