argument2 十二月高强组第二周周一作业

waidswUID: 2256074

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：445         用时：0:45:00          日期：2006-11-26

1 作者没有说明DA 以及别的地区的情况是什么样的， 所以不能证明B community是成功的，有可能DA 比B 增长幅度还大
2 没有证据说明增长是因为采取了那些措施
3 哪些措施在DA可能性不通
The arguer claims that the DA should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support this claim, the arguer points out that the average property values have tripled in nearby Brookville (B) since they adopted such set of restriction seven years ago. At first glance, this claim seems appealing. Careful scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals the claim flaws in several points.

The threshold problem of the evidence is that without any  information of property values about other similar communities or the average level in that entire area, we cannot know that whether the tripled property values is exceptional compared with others. It is very likely that while the average property values in B have tripled; other communities have even greater increment in the past seven years. Moreover, the arguer fails to offer the property-value information in DA. if the property values in DA have boosted even greater than those in B, the arguer’s claim was totally unjustifiable.

Secondly, even if the increase of property values is remarkable than other communities, the arguer fails to prove us that the significant increase is due to the implement of the restrictions. Perhaps the economy has been developing dramatically since the past several years and hence leads to the increase of the property values. Perhaps the natural sight views were recognized by the estate development company and invested in this community. Perhaps the opportunists want to make profits by raising the estate values purposely. There are myriads of other possibilities that could cause the increase of property values. It is possibly thoroughly the social trends rather than the local efforts that heighten the property values. And without taking into accounts those possibilities, the arguer can not convince us the effectiveness of the restriction. To the contrary, common sense informs us that the entire community with the identical yard and color, it looks somehow tedious and boring which undermines the values of the estates.

Thirdly, there is no evidence lending credible support to the claim that DA should actualize the restrictions. The arguer offers the example of the nearby B community, however, the adoption of the restriction was 8 years ago, and great alternations might take place during last 8 year. Even assuming the restrictions was suitable in that time; it is too hasty to conclude that such restrictions still have values at present. Moreover, the arguer could not persuade us that the residents in DA are willing to conform to the restrictions. Lacking any measure of the cooperativeness of the residents there, the arguer can’t justifiably prove us that the restrictions will be effective.

To sum up, the arguer’s claim is unsubstantiated as it stands. To strength this claim the arguer should provide that the dramatically increase of the property values in B is not a common phenomenon. And such increase is owing to the restrictions adopted seven years ago. To better evaluate this argument. I still have to know more specifically that whether these restrictions will be useful in DA as well.

sherry1225UID: 2192554

The arguer claims that the DA should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support this claim, the arguer points out that the average property values have tripled in nearby Brookville (B) since they adopted such set of restriction(s) seven years ago. At first glance, this claim seems appealing. Careful scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals the claim flaws in several points.

The threshold problem of the evidence is that without any  information of property values about other similar communities or the average level in that entire area, we cannot know that(that去掉) whether the tripled property values is(are) exceptional compared with others. It is very likely that while the average property values in B have tripled; other communities have even greater increment in the past seven years. Moreover, the arguer fails to offer the property-value information in DA. if(If) the property values in DA have boosted even greater than those in B, the arguer’s claim was totally unjustifiable.

Secondly, even if the increase of property values is remarkable than other communities, the arguer fails to prove us that the significant increase is due to the implement of the restrictions. Perhaps the economy has been developing dramatically since the past several years and hence leads to the increase of the property values. Perhaps the natural sight views were recognized by the estate development company and invested in this community. Perhaps(和前一个有点重复,suppose that...这三句好象中文里的排比,英语不知道这样好不好,建议换一下) the opportunists want to make profits by raising the estate values purposely. There are myriads of other possibilities that could cause the increase of property values. It is possibly thoroughly the social trends rather than the local efforts that heighten the property values. And without taking into accounts those possibilities, the arguer can not convince us the effectiveness of the restriction. To the contrary, common sense informs us that the entire community with the identical yard and color, it looks somehow tedious and boring which(and) undermines the values of the estates.

Thirdly, there is no evidence lending credible support to the claim that DA should actualize the restrictions. The arguer offers the example of the nearby B community, however, the adoption of the restriction was 8(好象是7年吧) years ago, and great alternations might take place during last 8 year. Even assuming the restrictions was suitable in that time; it is too hasty to conclude that such restrictions still have values at present. Moreover, the arguer could not persuade us that the residents in DA are willing to conform to the restrictions. Lacking any measure of the cooperativeness of the residents there, the arguer can’t justifiably prove us that the restrictions will be effective.

To sum up, the arguer’s claim is unsubstantiated as it stands. To strength this claim the arguer should provide that the dramatically increase of the property values in B is not a common phenomenon. And such increase is owing to the restrictions adopted seven years ago. To better evaluate this argument. I still have to know more specifically that whether these restrictions will be useful in DA as well.
LZ写的挺好的,建议多注意一下语法错误


当前时区 GMT