Arguement2 0607GMYTH小组第一次作业

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

"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: 579          TIME: 0:33:39          DATE: 2006-10-17

提纲：
1 The causal relation between the restriction and average property values is not well proved.
2 The situation in Brookville is a hasty generalization to Deerahaven Acres.
3 The time makes such suggestions frail.

  The author suggests that Deerhaven Acres should adopt its own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, by stating the situation that Brookville community adopted a set of such restrictions and their average property values tripled in the past years. However, in my view such suggestion suffers from a frail causal logical relationship between property values and landscape or housepainting and a hasty generalization from Brookville to Deerhaven Acres.

  First, the author link the landscaping and housepainting as  reasons to the tripled average property values in Brookville only based on the reality that these two things happens one after another. No evidence is provided to illustrate the landscape and colors of houses have certainly resulted in propelling the property values' development. Although good landscape can have a beneficial influence on people's moods, how this can provide high property values is not detailed. Anyway, whether Brookville had other measures for their property value development at the same time of adopting a set of restriction is not known. It is entirely possible Brookville has good economy situations and developed strong industries during the past seven years, which call all be the power to rise their average property values. Meanwhile, whether the set of restrictions is effective is also lack of evidence. The citizens may not obey it and the relevant agency can neglect such restrictions, without the survey of landscape situation in Brookville.

  Another fundamental problem with this suggestion is that it asks Deerhaven Acres simply to copy what Brookville did, which can be generalized as a hasty generalization. We are not given any information about the people's interests in either of two communities, so well as the natural conditions, economical levels and so forth. Even if the rised average property values in Brookville are due to adopting a set of restrictions, it is unpersuading to say Deerhaven Acres can benefit from this measure as well. Such restrictions may be useless but only cumbersome if the people in Deerhaven Acres do not have ability to paint their houses or are not founded of painted houses. Also, if the weather of Deerhaven Acres is always rainy, paint can be washed away easily, making the restriction lavishing. To compare with, Brookville might be good to build a well planned landscape and colored houses are popular there, which is different from the situation in Deerhaven Acres.

  Additionally, the set of restrictions in Brookville was adopted seven years ago, in which time the whole conditions may changed obviously. Even if the situation of Deerhaven Acres is similar to Brookville for adopting the restrictions, the market and people's habits may possibly be diversified after such a long time. The Brookville's residents are supposed to be adapted with such landscape and colors in the first several years, with the cost that their property values decreased, and came to the tripled values deviously in the end. Such experience may not be worthy for Deerhaven Acres and they may have better and more effective ways to manage its landscape.

  To sum up, the suggestion lacks credibility and feasibility because evidence in the analysis does not base on illustrated logical relation and such evidence is supporting the conclusion in an invalid way. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to prove that restricted landscape and housepainting can give a good influence on average property values, as well as such benefit can exist in Deerhaven Acres as what it operates in Brookville. Without such issues, the suggestion should not be accepted.

第一次写ARGUE全文， 发现字数也不好凑……感觉有些话来回说了，似乎也用不了那么多字就能把问题说清楚的……

airbotsUID: 2225434

The author suggests that Deerhaven Acres should adopt its own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, by stating the situation that Brookville community adopted a set of such(similar) restrictions and their average property values tripled in the past(seven) years. However, in my view such suggestion suffers from a frail causal logical relationship between property values and landscape or housepainting and a hasty generalization from Brookville to Deerhaven Acres.

文中可以替换的词在括号里面，causal relationship = 因果关系，加一个logical是否多余？
复述原题应当准确，否则很难下手批判。开头段最好列出自己要批判几个问题，如果拿不准
可以用severa，a series of 代替，或更能体现开头段的提纲挈领的作用。l

  First, the author link the landscaping and housepainting as  reasons to the tripled average property values in Brookville only based on the reality that these two things happens one after another. No evidence is provided to illustrate the landscape and colors of houses have certainly resulted in propelling the property values' development. Although good landscape can have a beneficial influence on people's moods, how this can provide high property values is not detailed. Anyway, whether Brookville had other measures for their property value development at the same time of adopting a set of restriction is not known. It is entirely possible Brookville has good economy situations and developed strong industries during the past seven years, which call all be the power to rise their average property values. Meanwhile, whether the set of restrictions is effective is also lack of evidence. The citizens may not obey it and the relevant agency can neglect such restrictions, without the survey of landscape situation in Brookville.

单复数错误太多（红色标出），而且没有读清题目，这两个小区是邻近的，工业的发展可能同时影响两个小区（绿色标示），楼主是不是认为是两个不同的城市啊？

  Another fundamental problem with this suggestion is that it asks Deerhaven Acres simply to copy what Brookville did, which can be generalized as a hasty generalization. We are not given any information about the people's interests in either of two communities, so well as the natural conditions, economical levels， and so forth. Even if the rised average property values in Brookville are due to adopting a set of restrictions, it is unpersuading to say Deerhaven Acres can benefit from this measure as well. Such restrictions may be useless but only cumbersome if the people in Deerhaven Acres do not have ability to paint their houses or are not founded of painted houses. Also, if the weather(climate要好些，而且两个地方是邻近的，气候可能相同) of Deerhaven Acres is always rainy, paint can be washed away easily, making the restriction lavishing. To compare with, Brookville might be good to build a well planned landscape and colored houses are popular there, which is different from the situation in Deerhaven Acres.

红色为语法错误，it指代不清， unpersuading != unpersuasive。本段主要目的列举可能差异
房价的高低在于供求关系，顾客是否愿意买是很主要的因素，作者忽视了这一点。

  Additionally, the set of restrictions in Brookville was adopted seven years ago, in which time the whole conditions may changed obviously. Even if the situation of Deerhaven Acres is similar to Brookville for adopting the restrictions, the market and people's habits may possibly be diversified after such a long time. The Brookville's residents are supposed to be adapted with such landscape and colors in the first several years, with the cost that their property values decreased, and came to the tripled values deviously in the end（不太明白这句意思）. Such experience may not be worthy for Deerhaven Acres and they may have better and more effective ways to manage its landscape.

本段说明措施不具有实效性，根据最不利原则，楼主可以多批判时间变化引起的差异，比如供求关系，人们对艺术风格爱好的变更，甚至可以假设estate bubble collapse和economy declination等等。

  To sum up, the suggestion lacks credibility and feasibility because evidence in the analysis does not base on illustrated logical relation and such evidence is supporting the conclusion in an invalid way. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to prove that restricted landscape and housepainting can give a good influence on average property values, as well as such benefit can exist in Deerhaven Acres as what it operates in Brookville. Without such issues, the suggestion should not be accepted.

由于我也是第一次写全文， 看了几篇范文，最后一段大多是列举如果arguer想说服我们信任
他的观点，应该怎么办之类的建议。楼主可以参考。

总之，全文给人凑字数的感觉，论证力度不太够。如果哪里批改错了，多包含啦。我也是新手，呵呵。

[ 本帖最后由 airbots 于 2006-10-19 16:07 编辑 ]