argument2 076G myth 小组第一次作业

杏林有情天UID: 2247728

2The 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."

The arguer alert that once D. A workers adopt their own restrictions on landscaping and housepainting ,their proverty will raised rapidly .But he fails to apply sufficient evidence to support his appoint .
Frist ,it is false analogy that compare the situation in seven years ago with circumstance today .Seven year ago ,residents maybe enjoy the homes landscaped and housepainted ,and are willing to pay money on the houses ,resulting in the enhancing proverty in B .But nowadays residents ‘interest and habits are changed along with the the development of society .They perhaps like the house not painted or what else .
Moreover ,arguer fails to establish the cause-effect relationship between adopting restrictions in B and the raising property of B .Arguer just apply former-later time relationship to us .Many possibilities occurred in that time so that raised the value of house in B .For example ,many new residents move into B ,needing houses immediately ,so as to created great benefits to B .Or perhaps duing to the city extending B becomes the center of city ,so its house price and popularity have been raised ,good sales bringing about high proverty .
Furthermore ,B and D. A are different communities ,different environments ,different residents and different workers woking in them .Arguer ignore to show convinced evidence to prove the similarity of them .B maybe gets investment from government ;or some fingers or stars move into it ;and perhaps their advertisements attract residents sights successfully ,and so  on .Considering all of these leads us to think that the raising proverty is not only even not relaying on the restrictions.
Supposing enhancing value indeed resulting from the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting,but who can know that  the restriction of D. A could satisfy residents’ requirements.One possibility is that B employed a talent designer to design the restrictions for it ,but D. A maybe employs  a ordinary designer who has no intellegence to design a satisfacting restrictions . Another possibility is that housepainting and landscaping are not popular nowadays,so even if D. A adopts their own restrictions ,the residents also have no interesting on the house .

phevos_xxUID: 2258006

The arguer alert that once D. A workers adopt their own restrictions on landscaping and housepainting ,their property will raisedp[raise] rapidly .But he fails to apply sufficient evidence to support his appoint [appoint意思和词性都不对，用view就可以了].
First, it is false analogy that compare the situation in seven years ago with circumstance today. Seven year ago ,residents maybe enjoy the homes landscaped and housepainted ,and are willing to pay money on the houses ,resulting in the enhancing proverty in B .But nowadays residents ‘interest and habits are changed along with the the development of society .They perhaps like the house not painted or what else .[还不如说他们更喜欢个性化，而不愿意刷成规定的颜色]一.7年前和现在已经时过境迁了

Moreover ,arguer fails to establish the cause-effect relationship between adopting restrictions in B and the raising property of B .Arguer just apply former-later time relationship to us .Many possibilities occurred in that time so that raised the value of house in B .For example ,many new residents move into B ,needing houses immediately ,so as to created great benefits to B .Or perhaps duing to the city extending B becomes the center of city ,so its house price and popularity have been raised ,good sales bringing about high proverty .
二.B的政策和b的涨价没有提供证据证明它们因果相关。可以再考虑通货膨胀inflation的因素。How much did the property value actually increase after adjustment of inflation?

Furthermore, B and D. A are[have] different communities ,different environments ,different residents and different workers working in them .Arguer ignores to show convinced evidence to prove the similarity of them. B maybe gets investment from government ;or some fingers[singers] or stars move into it ;and perhaps their advertisements attract residents sights successfully ,and so  on .Considering all of these leads us to think that the raising[rising] property is not only even not[not even only not…感觉很拗口, is not only due to the restrictions] relaying[rely,这个错误出现很多次了] on the restrictions.
三.B和da错误的类比
Supposing enhancing value indeed resulting from the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting,but who can know that  the restriction of D. A could satisfy residents’ requirements.One possibility is that B employed a talent designer to design the restrictions for it ,but D. A maybe employs  an ordinary designer who has no intellegence to design a satisfacting restrictions . Another possibility is that housepainting and landscaping are not popular nowadays,so even if D. A adopts their own restrictions ,the residents also have no interesting on the house .
四.这段怀疑市民是否接受这个限制

主要的问题：
1.        缺少总结段
2.        有些语法错误,rely on(错成relay on)  rising(raising),这个不是打字敲错的问题,应该是记忆的问题
3.        论证的顺序可以改进一下.常用的有两种论证方式,一种是按照逻辑顺序进行攻击,另一种的按照由重到轻的顺序进行攻击. 我个人比较喜欢前一种,写着顺畅,因为后一种对语言组织以及逻辑要求较高,一个重大的错误通常都包含了若干个小错误,难以一下子说清楚.
原文的推理逻辑是: 7年前b的一个政策----涨价-----ad为了涨价也应该实行这个政策
你的批驳逻辑也基本是按照这个顺序一个一个批驳的,不过我觉得”7年”这个问题和最后的市民是否接受这个限制可以合并起来，一起放在最后论述。作者的一些因果错误，一些胡乱假设，一些错误类比无疑是最需要批驳的，而比如“市民是否接受”“政策的时效性”两个问题我觉得优先级可以放后面一点，因为我们自己需要去假设一些东西来批驳它们，在说服力上稍逊。
4.      用词和句型还需要多用用闪光句型，argu的句型是可以掌握控制的，多看看argu的常用句型，能提高不少