Argument2 （12月作文高强组——好好学习，天天作文）

一月一号UID: 2148376

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: 458          TIME: 0:43:01          DATE: 2006-11-27

  In the argument above, the committee of homeowners from the Deerheaven Acres recommends that the Neerheaven should adopt their set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. This argument is based on a fact that the average property of the Brookvile has tripled after a set of restriction was adopted. However, it is apparently that this statement suffers several logic flaws.

  The threshold problem of this argument is false analogy. Even if the tripled average property of the Brookvile is the result of the adoption of the restriction on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should painted, we cannot certainly conclude that the restriction of landscaping will work as well in the Deerhaven Acres. Though Brookvile is near Deerhaven Acres, there are not any evidences that these two towns are comparable. Maybe the traffic situation, health care level and the education of the Brookvile are superior to those of the Deerhaven Acres, and thus there is no guarantee that the restriction can be adopted in Deerhaven and will automatically leads to the tripled property. It is also at least likely that most people in Brookvile appreciate conformity of the landscaping, but on the contrary, residents in Deerhaven Acres favor the variety of landcaping and housing painting. Thus, it is more difficult to adopt the restriction in Deerhaven Acres.

  Lack of persuasive evidence is another fallacy the arguer commits. The arguer fails to provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the causality relationship between the adoption of landscaping in Brookvile and the tripled property exist. As we know, people are generally concerned about the convenience of the traffic, the education and health care situation and even the economic development in the town when they intend to purchase a house, though the landscaping and housepainting also would be taken into account. However, it seems that all of those are ignored by the arguer.

  Last, incomprehensive consideration also makes this argument unpersuasive. Even adopting their own set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting would attract more customers, the property of Deerhaven Acres would surely increase. As she/he fails take other causes of the tripled property of Brookvile, she/he is blind to other causes in the deals of Deerhaven Acres. Further, the arguer fails to the feasibility and the costs of adopting the set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. Without considering all these possibility, the author cannot convince all homeowners to obey the restrictions.

  To sum, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen her/his recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence that the Brookvile and Deerhaven Acres are comparable in every aspect. Besides, more information concerning the causality relationship and the  feasibility of the restrictions in Deerhaven Acres is also needed.

作文版全体版主UID: 2102351

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: 458          TIME: 0:43:01          DATE: 2006-11-27

In the argument above, the committee of homeowners from the Deerheaven Acres recommends that the Neerheaven should adopt their set of restriction(s) on landscaping and housepainting. This argument is based on a fact that the average property of the Brookvile has tripled after a set of restriction(s) was adopted. However, it is apparently that this statement suffers several logic flaws. (1.段首不需要空格，直接顶格写。2.一段写得还不够简洁。A的开头请多参看ETS官方范文。也请参考imong的关于A的开头的讨论精华帖。你复述内容的能力还不够好。重抄的比较多。)  


The threshold problem of this argument is false analogy. Even if the tripled average property of the Brookvile is the result of the adoption of the restriction on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should painted, we cannot certainly conclude that the restriction of landscaping will work as well in the Deerhaven Acres.(首句指出false analogy以后，第二句阐述的过于复杂。基本30多个单词都是抄写原文。Even if the restrictions succeeded in improving property of B, does those restrictions work well in D?大概改了下。仅供参考) Though Brookvile is near Deerhaven Acres, there are not any evidences that these two towns are comparable. Maybe the traffic situation, health care level and the education of the Brookvile are superior to those of the Deerhaven Acres, and thus there is no guarantee(短时间内重复使用there be句型) that the restriction can be adopted in Deerhaven and will automatically leads to the tripled property. It is also at(at去掉) least likely that most people in Brookvile appreciate conformity of the landscaping, but on the contrary, residents in Deerhaven Acres favor the variety of landcaping and housing painting. Thus, it is more difficult to adopt the restriction in Deerhaven Acres.(是很难采用？还是不一定effective?应该是后者吧。不要自相矛盾噢)

Lack of persuasive evidence is another fallacy the arguer commits. The arguer fails to provide enough evidence to demonstrate that the causality relationship between the adoption of landscaping in Brookvile and the tripled property exist. As we know, people are generally concerned about the convenience of the traffic, the education and health care situation and even the economic development in the town when they intend to purchase a house, though the landscaping and housepainting also would be(maybe) taken into account. However, it seems that all of those are ignored by the arguer.(这一段还比较好。以后可以以这个为参照练习。开头和结尾要简单，指出错误要犀利，简洁。而且要有一定的展开，充分论证你的观点。)  

Last, incomprehensive consideration also makes this argument unpersuasive. Even adopting their own set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting would attract more customers, the property of Deerhaven Acres would surely increase.(？？？不懂) As she/he(没必要用这种，就he好了) fails take other causes of the tripled property of Brookvile, she/he is blind to other causes in the deals of Deerhaven Acres. Further, the arguer fails to (缺个动词吧)the feasibility and the costs of adopting the set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. Without considering all these possibility, the author cannot convince all homeowners to obey the restrictions.(这一段不知所云。一开始就看不懂你的主题句。中式英语也比较多。总之比较失败的一段。需要修改)  

To sum, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen her/his recommendation, the arguer should provide more evidence that the Brookvile and Deerhaven Acres are comparable in every aspect. Besides, more information concerning the causality relationship and the  feasibility of the restrictions in Deerhaven Acres is also needed.(结尾也请参照ETS范文。个人觉得不需要写to strengthen……)

论证的思维顺序不够合理。
一开始首先可以批驳作者的论据（那个B城市提高了是因为特殊的政策，理由很多，比如说全国的房价都升值了。那里环境好。投资了等等。时间关系被等同于因果关系，也许这个政策毫无作用。但是其他政策发挥作用了。）
然后批驳作者以这个论据得出的结论（这里就是假设了作者论据是成立的）
首先，类比错误。你已经指出来了。
其次，也许还有其他的方法提高D地的房价。是不是只有这个办法呢？还有什么合适的办法？

句式能力还不错，词汇还要加强。模版使用比较少，这点应保持下去。最后达到的水平最好是自己的话犀利深刻的剖析。

字数差不多了。时间还可以放宽点写。加油。

主要给你看得结构和思路等，语法没怎么仔细看。似乎问题不大，不过你还需要留心。

[ 本帖最后由 作文版全体版主 于 2006-11-27 21:24 编辑 ]

作文版全体版主UID: 2102351

seat taken