argument2 【米国有米】小组第二次作业

joochangUID: 2265219

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: 374       DATE: 2006-11-24

The argument above presents a relatively sound case for arguing that homeowners in the Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer cites the experience of the Brookvile community. However, careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal that it suffers from several fallacies and so is unconvincing.

Fist of all, the causal relationship between adopting the set of restrictions and the increase of the average in Brookvile is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support the assumption. To establish this relationship, other factors that could lead to this result must be considered and ruled out. For example, the location, the environment, the structure of the population and so on. Without eliminating these and other possible factors, the arguer cannot confidently conclude that the increase of average property is caused by the adoption of the set of restrictions.

Moreover, the arguer fails to take into account the inherent differences between Brookvile and Deerhaven Acres. It is possibly that the course of action would be ineffective on Deerhaven Acres due to a myriad of differences, such as disparity in location, whole economic condition and environment and so on. As a result, Brookvile and Deerhaven Acres establish an oversimplified analogy. Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the arguer cannot draw the conclusion that taking the similar restrictions as Brookvile would result in the same result in Deerhaven Acres.

Finally, It is assumed without justification that background conditions have remained the same during different periods. Nonetheless, the arguer obviously neglected that evidence of seven years ago has little worthiness for future action. It is possible that many factors such as economic conditions and desirability have changed over this time span. Any of these scenarios, would serve to undermine the claim that adopting certain set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will raise property values in Deerhaven Acres.

In conclusion, this argument has several obvious fallacies which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, more evidence should be provided to support the casual relationship between adopting the set of restrictions and the increase of the average in Brookvile. Furthermore, to better evaluate hte arguer's claim, the disparity between Brookvile and Deerhaven Acres should worked out made clearly.

[ 本帖最后由 joochang 于 2006-11-24 22:38 编辑 ]

bailamo27UID: 2191717

The argument above presents a relatively sound case for arguing that homeowners in the Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer cites the experience of the Brookvile community. However, careful scrutiny of this argument would reveal that it suffers from several fallacies and so is unconvincing.（第一段对题目用自己的话总结得好，简洁明了．最后一句好！）

Fist of all, the causal relationship between adopting the set of restrictions and the increase of the average in Brookvile is unwarranted. No evidence is offered to support the assumption. To establish this relationship, other factors that could lead to this result must be considered and ruled out. For example, the location, the environment, the structure（用distribution更恰当） of the population and so on. Without eliminating these and other possible factors, the arguer cannot confidently conclude that the increase of average property is caused by the adoption of the set of restrictions.

Moreover, the arguer fails to take into account the inherent differences between Brookvile and Deerhaven Acres. It is possibly that the course of action would be ineffective on Deerhaven Acres due to a myriad of differences, such as disparity in location（上段中谈及location此处未免有些重复）, whole economic condition and environment and so on. As a result, Brookvile and Deerhaven Acres establish an oversimplified analogy（good sentence). Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the arguer cannot draw the conclusion that taking the similar restrictions as Brookvile would result in the same result in Deerhaven Acres.(此句是参考了范文的吧？我猜．）

Finally, It（it） is assumed without justification that background conditions have remained the same during different periods. Nonetheless, the arguer obviously neglected that evidence of seven years ago has little worthiness（过于绝对，用a　little会好些．） for future action. It is possible that many factors such as economic conditions and desirability have changed over this time span. Any of these scenarios, would serve to undermine the claim that adopting certain set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will raise property values in Deerhaven Acres.

In conclusion, this argument has several obvious fallacies which render it logically unpersuasive as it stands. （好，值得学习）To strengthen the argument, more evidence should be provided to support the casual relationship between adopting the set of restrictions and the increase of the average in Brookvile. Furthermore, to better evaluate hte（the） arguer's claim, the disparity between Brookvile and Deerhaven Acres should worked out made clearly.（这句我不太明白意思．）

总体说来写得不错，句式用得很好，我都用红色标出来了．如果能在第２＼３段中的如地区差异等稍微展开一下说明，可能效果会更好．下次能先把提纲　show一下，修改者更能掌握思路．

[ 本帖最后由 bailamo27 于 2006-11-27 16:43 编辑 ]