Argument2 【CSMY作文互改小组】第四次作业 有拍必回

siyuandingUID: 2154137

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."
七年前，附近的Brookville社区的业主实施了一系列关于该社区的庭院应如何布置以及房屋应涂何种颜色的规定。从那以后，Brookville的地产平均价格翻了三番。为使Deerhaven Acres的地产升值，我们也应该对于景观和房屋涂色实施自己的规定。

提纲
1、 BV的地价提高另有他因
2、 DA实施了限制性方案也不一定会提高地价
3、 罗列其他fallacies

Citing certain evidence about another community, the arguer claims that they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting to increase property values. This line of reasoning is flawed in several aspects.

To begin with, the arguer cannot justify the recommended course of action on the basis of the Brookville (BV) community's success. The increase in BV's property values might rely on other factors, especially in that a remarkable period of time has passed since BV adopted the restrictions. Perhaps the economy of the city where BV locates could be roaring over the recent decades, which result in an influx of a large amount of immigrants. Or perhaps that there might be not so much land for the supply of housing because of the policy of protecting natural environment. In short, the arguer cannot defend the recommended course of action on the basis of what might be false analogy between the two communities.

Even assuming that BV's rising in poverty values is attributable to the implementation of the restrictions. Adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting might not result in increasing property values for Deerhaven Acres (DA), especially if residents there are not interested in exterior appearance of one community. There is also the possibility that DA housbuyers would find consistent exterior appearance a lack of creativity, which would in turn tend to decrease DA's property values. Without ruling out these and other reasons why DA might not benefit from the adoption, the arguer cannot convince me that DA would attract more housebuyers, let alone increase property values.

Finally, there are some other unsubstantiated assumptions the arguer relies on. It is possible that the arguer has confused cause with effect respecting the recent development in BV. Perhaps BV's implementation of the restrictions was response to previous increase in property values. If these restrictions are not well implemented, then any change in BV's property values cannot be attributed to them. Even though the restrictions would be function, the possibility cannot be excluded that rising property values will continue. For that matter, the arguer's recommend would amount to especially poor advice.

In sum, the argument relies on what might amount to the poor analogy between BV and DA. To bolter it, more convincing evidence is needed why BV adopted the restrictions, and what factors other than implementation have contributed to BV's success. To better assess the strength of the recommendation, I would need more information that restrictions would be profitable and would serve to raise DA's property values. It would be also helpful to know whether the restrictions were well implemented in BV.

[ 本帖最后由 siyuanding 于 2007-1-16 02:21 编辑 ]

staroceanUID: 2271193

Citing certain evidence about another community, the arguer claims that they should adopt their own set of restrictions on（这样似乎看不出来两地的联系了，还是换成copy ...'s method之类的更清楚一点。） landscaping and housepainting to increase property values. This line of reasoning is flawed in several aspects.

To begin with, the arguer cannot justify the recommended course of action on the basis of the Brookville (BV) community's success。 The increase in BV's property values might rely on other factors, especially in that a remarkable period of time has passed since BV adopted the restrictions.（这段后面都没有说时间变化，这里说特别是。。。不好。） Perhaps the economy of the city where BV locates could be roaring over the recent decades, which result in an influx of a large amount of immigrants. Or perhaps that there might be not so much land for the supply of housing because of the policy of protecting natural environment（太具体了，就说可能可以买的房子少了就行了。）. In short, the arguer cannot defend the recommended course of action on the basis of what might be false analogy between the two communities.（这一段你写的是：没证明这个措施的有效性，可能是其他原因导致了涨价，错误类比，但是其实这一段是在说这个限制可能不是当时b地涨价的原因，这个可不是类比错误，这里ts和最后一句话都要改。）

Even assuming that BV's rising in poverty values is attributable to the implementation of the restrictions. Adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting might not result in increasing property values for Deerhaven Acres (DA), especially if residents there are not interested in exterior appearance of one community. There is also the possibility that DA housbuyers would find consistent exterior appearance a lack of creativity, which would in turn tend to decrease DA's property values. Without ruling out these and other reasons（这段其实翻来覆去就说了一个原因，对外观不感兴趣。。。。立论点不好，我在后面一起说。） why DA might not benefit from the adoption, the arguer cannot convince me that DA would attract more housebuyers, let alone increase property values.（这一段才是错误类比，另外这里的立论点变成没看到可能的因素可以造成这个措施在d不能用， 其中可以写人们对于外表不感兴趣，还可以写7年两地的差异，人们观念的差异，是不是更关心其他的问题等等。）

Finally, there are some other（指代不清楚，后面写了两个，就老老实实的在这里写两个好了。这样结构更清楚一点） unsubstantiated assumptions the arguer relies on. It is possible that the arguer has confused cause with effect（这个句子似乎有点奇怪） respecting the recent development in BV. Perhaps BV's implementation of the restrictions was response to previous increase in property values.（又写回去了，还是在说可能这个限制不是造成b地涨价的原因。） If these restrictions are not well implemented, then any change in BV's property values cannot be attributed to them. Even though the restrictions would be function, the possibility cannot be excluded that rising property values will continue（是不是可以持续其实也可以归到上一段7年两地差异，错误类比里面）. For that matter, the arguer's recommend would amount to especially poor advice.

In sum, the argument relies on what might amount to the poor analogy between BV and DA. To bolter it, more convincing evidence is needed （concerning）why BV adopted the restrictions(为什么采用了这个限制？有什么用呢？觉得和上文联系不是很紧密呢), and what factors（不应该问什么，应该问有没有） other than implementation have contributed to BV's success. To better assess the strength of the recommendation, I would need more information（about） that restrictions would be profitable and would serve to raise DA's property values. It would be also helpful to know whether the restrictions were well implemented in BV.

恩，点找的很多，也比较全了，主要的问题是全文的结构不好，有点乱，应该更多的看看全文的联系，以及题目的联系。
其实题目是说：当年b地限制外观了=〉房价上涨=〉我们限制外观=〉房价也会上涨。
建议的顺序如下：
1。b的限制是不是有效？人们遵守不遵守，做得怎么样？变化多大？
2。就算限制有效，是不是导致其房价上涨的决定性原因？（你的第一段）
3。就算在b地当年真的有效，是不是现在在d也行？７年两地变化可能造成的负面影响。（你的第二段）

另外，举他因的时候要注意一点：
他因一般有两个层次，比如你的第一段里写的，第一层是：人口多了，或者房子共给少了，第二层是什么经济增长，什么环保。举的时候一定要注意，直接原因（第一层）的多举，第二层的少举，略举，而且注意平衡，这里其实说，决定房价的关键因素是供求关系，可能求多了，比如人口的上涨，或者政府等原因导致的供应减少，这样写就足够了。因为如果你说了什么环保之类这么具体的例子，会显得第一层的例子不充分，而且这个例子也有点原，不必要也不是很有力，总之要再注意一点。

语言上，看得出你是看了很多范文，但是有的句子似乎还是有点奇怪，不过也可能只是因为我没看过，所以画出来了，如果你自己也不是很拿得准，最好再看看。

最后，可能你也是看北美，看的时候一定要注意，北美确实有很多优点，但是他的arugment 有的写的很空，而且全文结构不是那么好，还有喜欢用空话说调查的问题，总之辩证一点地看，不要全信。


[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-26 02:41 编辑 ]

staroceanUID: 2271193

改完了 顶上去

siyuandingUID: 2154137

哇，改得好详细哟！谢谢幽海妹妹
copy下来，仔细反省

siyuandingUID: 2154137

辛苦你了，幽海同学，改我的文章简直是折磨人把！回去好好思过，下一篇文章我保证不会让你失望

Citing certain evidence about another community, the arguer claims that they should adopt their own set of restrictions on(这样似乎看不出来两地的联系了，还是换成copy ...'s method之类的更清楚一点。)言之有理 landscaping and housepainting to increase property values. This line of reasoning is flawed in several aspects.

To begin with, the arguer cannot justify the recommended course of action on the basis of the Brookville (BV) community's success。 The increase in BV's property values might rely on other factors, especially in that a remarkable period of time has passed since BV adopted the restrictions.(这段后面都没有说时间变化，这里说特别是。。。不好。)对 Perhaps the economy of the city where BV locates could be roaring over the recent decades, which result in an influx of a large amount of immigrants. Or perhaps that there might be not so much land for the supply of housing because of the policy of protecting natural environment(太具体了，就说可能可以买的房子少了就行了。).我保留 In short, the arguer cannot defend the recommended course of action on the basis of what might be false analogy between the two communities.(这一段你写的是：没证明这个措施的有效性，可能是其他原因导致了涨价，错误类比，但是其实这一段是在说这个限制可能不是当时b地涨价的原因，这个可不是类比错误，这里ts和最后一句话都要改。)问题好严重亚！这是写完没修改的后果。的确，下段才是类比错误，这一段用他因辩驳

Even assuming that BV's rising in poverty values is attributable to the implementation of the restrictions. Adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting might not result in increasing property values for Deerhaven Acres (DA), especially if residents there are not interested in exterior appearance of one community. There is also the possibility that DA housbuyers would find consistent exterior appearance a lack of creativity, which would in turn tend to decrease DA's property values. Without ruling out these and other reasons(这段其实翻来覆去就说了一个原因，对外观不感兴趣。。。。立论点不好，我在后面一起说。)对，alternative explanations 太少了，而且仅仅是一个方面 why DA might not benefit from the adoption, the arguer cannot convince me that DA would attract more housebuyers, let alone increase property values.(这一段才是错误类比，另外这里的立论点变成没看到可能的因素可以造成这个措施在d不能用， 其中可以写人们对于外表不感兴趣，还可以写7年两地的差异，人们观念的差异，是不是更关心其他的问题等等。)对，你这样才体现了例子的多样性

Finally, there are some other(指代不清楚，后面写了两个，就老老实实的在这里写两个好了。这样结构更清楚一点)这是我当时想尝试一种新的写法，“错误太多，干脆罗列错误”，后来想想这样的确不行，太笼统了 unsubstantiated assumptions the arguer relies on. It is possible that the arguer has confused cause with effect(这个句子似乎有点奇怪）打错了，是a confused cause and effect relationship respecting the recent development in BV. Perhaps BV's implementation of the restrictions was response to previous increase in property values.(又写回去了，还是在说可能这个限制不是造成b地涨价的原因。)本来是想写因果颠倒的错误，即是因为房地产升价了才实施restrictions的，但怕展开太多没时间写，就没写清楚；而且这个错误放这也不太合适 If these restrictions are not well implemented, then any change in BV's property values cannot be attributed to them. Even though the restrictions would be function, the possibility cannot be excluded that rising property values will continue(是不是可以持续其实也可以归到上一段7年两地差异，错误类比里面).我怎么会这么笨呢？逻辑联系能力太差了把 For that matter, the arguer's recommend would amount to especially poor advice.

In sum, the argument relies on what might amount to the poor analogy between BV and DA. To bolter it, more convincing evidence is needed (concerning）对 why BV adopted the restrictions(为什么采用了这个限制？有什么用呢？觉得和上文联系不是很紧密呢), 针对的确是要升高房价才这么做and what other factors(不应该问什么，应该问有没有) other rather than implementation have contributed to BV's success. To better assess the strength of the recommendation, I would need more information（about）同位语从句行吗 that restrictions would be profitable and would serve to raise DA's property values. It would be also helpful to know whether the restrictions were well implemented in BV.

( 恩，点找的很多，也比较全了，主要的问题是全文的结构不好，有点乱，应该更多的看看全文的联系，以及题目的联系。)对极，回观我的文章，真难想象我的逻辑思维竟然会是这个样子
(其实题目是说：当年b地限制外观了=〉房价上涨=〉我们限制外观=〉房价也会上涨。
建议的顺序如下：
1。b的限制是不是有效？人们遵守不遵守，做得怎么样？变化多大？
2。就算限制有效，是不是导致其房价上涨的决定性原因？（你的第一段）
3。就算在b地当年真的有效，是不是现在在d也行？７年两地变化可能造成的负面影响。（你的第二段）)看来我忽视了列提纲的重要性，满以为自己的这方面能力很强，结果轻视了argument

(另外，举他因的时候要注意一点：
他因一般有两个层次，比如你的第一段里写的，第一层是：人口多了，或者房子共给少了，第二层是什么经济增长，什么环保。举的时候一定要注意，直接原因（第一层）的多举，第二层的少举，略举，而且注意平衡，这里其实说，决定房价的关键因素是供求关系，可能求多了，比如人口的上涨，或者政府等原因导致的供应减少，这样写就足够了。因为如果你说了什么环保之类这么具体的例子，会显得第一层的例子不充分，而且这个例子也有点原，不必要也不是很有力，总之要再注意一点。)这一点，我要保留，as a good writer, you cannot be too specific, 作为一个写作好手，怎么具体也不过分，既然可以把第一层原因说清楚了，为啥不把文章写得更饱满？

(语言上，看得出你是看了很多范文，但是有的句子似乎还是有点奇怪，不过也可能只是因为我没看过，所以画出来了，如果你自己也不是很拿得准，最好再看看。)对，大量套用北美的模版，不知可否？

(最后，可能你也是看北美，看的时候一定要注意，北美确实有很多优点，但是他的arugment 有的写的很空，而且全文结构不是那么好，还有喜欢用空话说调查的问题，总之辩证一点地看，不要全信。)

[ 本帖最后由 siyuanding 于 2007-1-27 15:27 编辑 ]

staroceanUID: 2271193

哇 好仔细，赞一个
其实就是结构上有一点小乱，其他的都没问题。而且看得出你还是蛮有洞察力的，点找的很全。
但是就像你自己也说的，列提纲还是很重要的，而且结构严谨对于好的argument来说很重要，而且好的结构也有助于避免重复和拉开角度，写的更加饱满。总之多练一点提纲绝对是有必要的。

关于那个例子的问题，其实也不是很大的问题，但是我主要担心两个事情，一是花笔墨写这个很可能浪费了多写几个层次的时间，二是有的时候，太过具体，不是那么贴近一般情况的例子反而会降低你的可信度，因为是要驳斥别人，所以越是一眼就让人看出来的东西，越是可靠，有的时候这里容易显得有点偏激。不过你的这个例子还不是不可靠，而且如果你有时间精力，想写当然可以写。

再有，我觉得要不要用魔板其实不是很大的问题，如果你的结构很在加强一点，其实你会发现没有什么时间来说魔板的空话，用的也比较少了。但是我也觉得有必要掌握一些这样的套话，万一没得写了，也不至于空着。北美的套路还是蛮专业的，用用没什么不好。

期待看你下次的大作。加油。