Argument2【CSMY作文互改小组】第四次作业

浮华如烟UID: 113618

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: 615          TIME: 1:03:51          DATE: 2007-1-16



提纲：
① “Fails to establish the causal relationship，因果错误”。题目中的一个短语“since then”为我们揭示了这个可能的逻辑谬误。Brookville的地产均价翻了三番，并不一定就是由于采纳了一系列有关房屋的限制措施的原因。可能的原因会有国民经济势头良好，居民收入增加导致对房屋的需求上升从而引起房屋均价的上涨；有大量的外地人口持续迁入导致的对房屋需求的上升，等等。而那些限制措施倒反而有可能导致房屋均价的下降。因此，仅仅是时间上的先后，并不能在“采纳限制措施”和“房屋均价上升”之间建立因果关系。

② “all things are equal，以过去证据推断现在或将来”。即使“Brookville的地产均价翻了三番”是因为“采纳了限制措施”，但是这是七年前的事情：“seven years ago”。那么现在再来采纳这样的限制措施，能否取得效果就不得而知了。

③ “False analogy，类比错误”。“nearby Brookville community”，虽然在结论中提到的是“own set of restriction”，但是内容仍然是关于“庭院美化和外漆颜色”方面的。很有可能对于Brookville community，庭院的美化和房屋外表油漆是影响其房价的主要因素，却不是Deerhaven Acres房产价格较低的原因。如果采取针对这方面的限制措施，很可能无法得到想要的结果。

④即使关于“庭院美化和外漆颜色”方面的限制措施对于Deerhaven Acres也是很有针对性的，那么光靠这些限制措施，是不是就足够了呢？有可能要想提高该地区地产的价格，其他的一系列配套措施也是必须的。



At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be quite sound. According to his conclusion, the property values will be raised if they adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. But unfortunately, if we make a careful consideration of his evidence, doubt will be cast on this conclusion and apprehension will be heaped on this committee's future performance.

To begin with, the author unjustifiably assumes that the increased average property values in Brookville(B) is attributable to the implementation of these restrictions. However, the author obviously overlooks various alternative explanations for these phenomena. For instance, it is entirely possible that the government of B carried out a series of policies to attract foreign enterprises. They invested B's business and offered many new jobs living and working conditions. Under such favorable circumstance, the prosperous transportation around the houses in B could be undoubtedly responsible for the increase in B. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible scenarios, the author cannot persuade me that the increased property values in B is resulted from the implement of the restrictions in B.

Granted it is true that the increased property values in B is attributable to its implementation of restrictions, the author unfairly infers from the comparatively effective result that took place in the past that such implementation must also comparatively work well today. Nevertheless, absent evidence to support this inference, it is highly possible that the situation has changed dramatically and therefore such courses of action are no longer accepted by the potential vendee. For example, perhaps the current fashionable color style tends to be a single color rather than the mixed style advocated in the restrictions. If this is the case, the implementation of any arbitrary simulation will undoubtedly lead to be abortive.

Even assuming that such action adopted in D is really effective, the author commits a false analogy that such policy will have the same function on B. The analogy depends on the assumption that all the conditions that affect the property values and environment in both areas are similar. However, the housebuyers' taste in D might quite differ from the interest of group in B. For that matter, perhaps the housebuyers in B do not care about the exterior appearance of houses and what they are mostly interested in is the fastness of the houses or the facility of the transportation around these houses. In this case, adopting these restrictions might be useless or even counteractive to raise property values. Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the author cannot convince me that such restrictions will also be effective in D.

Even if we accept that such guideline will also exert comparative influence on D Acres, the author's claim is based on the assumption that no alternative means of raising the property values are available. However, the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. For example, perhaps other factors such as ameliorating the condition of the investment environment, appropriate tax rate or convenient transportation will be more effective for D rather than just solely implementing the advocated restrictions. Without considering and eliminating these and other alternative means, it is difficult to assess the merit of the author's recommendation that such implementation provides the optimal selection for the homeowners in D.

In summary, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. The evidence provided in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to present more evidence that the housebuyers in D is also interested in the exterior appearance and other alternatives to raise the property values should be taken into account.

staroceanUID: 2271193

At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be quite sound. （我还是觉得不是那么好，要是想说seems sound后面就应该说他怎么seems sound了，不过因为和后面的错误拉开了距离，就这样说也没什么大问题。）According to his conclusion, the property values will be raised if they adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. But unfortunately（这里衔接的很好）, if we make a careful consideration of his evidence, doubt will be cast on this conclusion and apprehension will be heaped on this committee's future performance.

To begin with, the author unjustifiably assumes that the increased average property values in Brookville(B) is attributable to the implementation of these restrictions. However, the author obviously overlooks various alternative explanations for these phenomena. For instance, it is entirely possible that the government of B carried out a series of policies to attract foreign enterprises. They invested B's business and offered many new jobs living and working conditions.（说了这么多都是在说人口多了，我觉得应该把力气放在和人口多平行的他因上，而不是放在这下面一层上。比如人口多了，可以买的房子少了，整体物价都涨了等等。要不然费了好大力气还是就说了一个他因人口多。） Under such favorable circumstance, the prosperous transportation around the houses in B could be undoubtedly responsible for the increase in B. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible scenarios, the author cannot persuade me that the increased property values in B is resulted from the implement of the restrictions in B.

Granted （嘿嘿 很高兴没看到even if）it is true that the increased property values in B is attributable （上一段也用了吧，换 key determinant 之类的）to its implementation of restrictions, the author unfairly infers from the comparatively effective result that took place in the past that such implementation must also comparatively work well today. Nevertheless, absent evidence to support this inference(这个不错，我收了), it is highly possible that the situation has changed dramatically and therefore such courses of action are no longer accepted by the potential vendee.（你看到这里为止大半段都是说可能变了，到现在才开始说他因，前面应该浓缩呢。） For example, perhaps the current fashionable color style tends to be a single color rather than the mixed style advocated in the restrictions. （还是就有一个他因，七年前可能房屋价格不稳定，稍有动静就变化很大，但是现在可能价格非常稳固，很难引起大的上涨。人们的价值取向可能变了，七年前人们可能更侧重房屋的外观，但是现在可能更在意别的东西，结果就算外观好了，涨价不涨价也很难说。）If this is the case, the implementation of any arbitrary simulation will undoubtedly lead to be abortive.

Even assuming that such action adopted in D is really effective,（这里的让步用的不是那么好，因为上一段其实已经让了一样的，所以本来这一段应该假设七年也没变，但是你很精确的看到七年和地区差异其实是并列的所以用让步也不是那么好，但是假设七年没变也比还假设限制有效要好。我又看了一下，b和d不是混了吧？） the author commits a false analogy that such policy will have the same function on B. The analogy depends on the assumption that all the conditions that affect the property values and environment in both areas are similar. However, the housebuyers' taste in D might quite differ from the interest of group in B. （又唠叨了。。。）For that matter, perhaps the housebuyers in B do not care about the exterior appearance of houses and what they are mostly interested in is the fastness of the houses or the facility of the transportation around these houses.（恩 放到这里说了价值取向） In this case, adopting these restrictions might be useless or even counteractive to raise property values. Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the author cannot convince me that such restrictions will also be effective in D.

Even if we accept that such guideline will also exert comparative influence on D Acres, the author's claim is based on the assumption （这个好像用过了，换成overlooks...别老是基于什么假设）that no alternative means of raising the property values are available. However, the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. For example, perhaps other factors such as ameliorating the condition of the investment environment, appropriate tax rate or convenient transportation will be more effective for D rather than just solely implementing the advocated restrictions. Without considering and eliminating these and other alternative means, it is difficult to assess the merit of the author's recommendation that such implementation provides the optimal selection for the homeowners in D.（我觉得这一段又在说什么可以影响房屋价格了，用了三段最后都是说什么可以影响房屋价格。。。再有这种武断的认为建议是best choice的错误，我觉得放在小段里面小说就可以了，用一大段可能不是那么好。其实如果想说建议的可行性之类的，可以把这段换成，可能我们这里这个限制就不可行，比如人们可能反对，房屋本身差异太大，整体结构就不一样，花园什么的没办法统一限制，然后再说一句，就算可以限制，这也不一定是最好的方法，就行了。）

In summary, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. The evidence provided in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to present more evidence that the housebuyers in D is also interested in the exterior appearance and other alternatives to raise the property values should be taken into account.

恩 条理很清楚，语言也没问题。很高兴没看到什么even if 基本上语言上的都注意到了。
结构上只能说是可以更好：我建议把2，3段和在一起说，就是七年和地区差异，直接说七年前的d和今天的b有什么不同。因为要是分开，很难说什么是时间差异，什么是地区差异，而且合起来更容易饱满。另外就是分开的时候用了很多同样的话来说错误假定了。。。都一样，没看到。。。的不同可能造成的影响，不如干脆放到一起比较简洁。

这个文我觉得其实第一段也可以质疑当时d的限制是不是有效果，因为限制外观和限速不同，人们不一定都遵守了，遵守了也不一定办得很好，可能限制了结果并不是很理想，然后后面就可以接着说就算限制有效，是不是决定。。。的关键因素也很难说。
另外，我觉得不要老是想说。。。不是。。。的原因，可以说。。。不是。。。的决定因素，这样自己的空间更大一些。

我要是会吸星大法就发你脑子里的语言都吸进来。。。

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-16 13:01 编辑 ]

浮华如烟UID: 113618

MM辛苦了哦，我会进一步注意自己的问题的

lyuzheUID: 2273307

At first glance, the arguer's reasoning seems to be quite sound. According to his conclusion, the property values will be raised if they adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. But unfortunately, if we make a careful consideration of his evidence, doubt will be cast on this conclusion and apprehension will be heaped on this committee's future performance.

To begin with, the author unjustifiably assumes that the increased average property values in Brookville(B) is attributable to the implementation of these restrictions. However, the author obviously overlooks various alternative explanations for these phenomena. For instance, it is entirely possible that the government of B carried out a series of policies to attract foreign enterprises. They invested B's business and offered many new jobs living and working conditions. [感觉这句话有点多余，这段说需求增大可导致房价上升，把这个关系说清楚就好了，可以在foreign enterprise 后加一个which引导的定语从句，which make it possible for the increasing price of ....]Under such favorable circumstance, the prosperous transportation around the houses in B could be undoubtedly responsible for the increase in B. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible scenarios, the author cannot persuade me that the increased property values in B is resulted from the implement of the restrictions in B.【可以多分析几个原因】

Granted it is true that the increased property values in B is attributable to its implementation of restrictions, the author unfairly infers from the comparatively effective result that took place in the past that such implementation must also comparatively work well today. 【这句话连着用了两个that，感觉读着不舒服，可以试试用非谓语动词】Nevertheless, absent evidence to support this inference, it is highly possible that the situation has changed dramatically and therefore such courses of action are no longer accepted by the potential vendee. For example, perhaps the current fashionable color style tends to be a single color rather than the mixed style advocated in the restrictions. If this is the case, the implementation of any arbitrary simulation will undoubtedly lead to be abortive.

Even assuming that such action adopted in D is really effective, the author commits a false analogy that such policy will have the same function on B. The analogy depends on the assumption that all the conditions that affect 【改为affecting好一些么？】the property values and environment in both areas are similar. However, the housebuyers' taste in D might quite differ from the interest of group in B. For that matter, perhaps the housebuyers in B do not care about the exterior appearance of houses and what they are mostly interested in is the fastness of the houses or the facility of the transportation around these houses. In this case, adopting these restrictions might be useless or even counteractive to raise property values. Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the author cannot convince me that such restrictions will also be effective in D.

Even if we accept that such guideline will also exert comparative influence on D Acres, the author's claim is based on the assumption that no alternative means of raising the property values are available. However, the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. For example, perhaps other factors such as ameliorating the condition of the investment environment, appropriate tax rate or convenient transportation will be more effective for D rather than just solely implementing the advocated restrictions. Without considering and eliminating these and other alternative means, it is difficult to assess the merit of the author's recommendation that such implementation provides the optimal selection for the homeowners in D.

In summary, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. The evidence provided in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to present more evidence that the housebuyers in D is also interested in the exterior appearance and other alternatives to raise the property values should be taken into account.
我的水平很有限拉，还不能看出楼主结构上的漏洞。觉得很有条理啊，语言十分好，许多词用的很地道，而且每段内容也是逐步深入的。我会多学习拉