argument2 <aspire互改小组>组员No.9襄王有梦第二次作业，抡圆了拍吧

襄王有梦UID: 2297975

Argument2 （470, 2h)
The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deer haven Acres to all homeowners in Deer haven 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 Deer haven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting."
提纲：
A: There is no direct causal relationship between the adoption of restrictions and the triple of property values in Brookville.
B: The author fails to take the whole economy situations into account. It is likely that currency inflation has taken place during the seven years so that many commodities have tripled beside the average property values.
C: The arguer makes a false analogy that since the restrictions tripled the property values in Brookville, their community should also set up their own restrictions. There are several compelling examples to prove that the opinion is unfeasible.
正文
     In this letter a committee of homeowners from the Deer haven Acres claims that in order to raise property values in Deer haven Acres, inhabitants should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting since the same measure used by homeowners in Brookville community seven years ago which tripled the average property values. To support this recommendation, the writer put forward some unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive.
     First of all, there is no direction causal relationship between the adoption of restrictions and the triple of property values in Brookville. As a matter of fact, the raise of property values in Deer haven Acres just only takes place behind the adoption of restrictions, and no more evidence shows that the latter causes former. On the other hand, the writer fails to rule out the possibility that currency inflation has taken place during the seven years so that the average of price of all the commodities have risen up a great deal. Also, property values are a function of supply and demand. Perhaps the demand for housing in the area has increased due to an influx of major employers. Or, perhaps the supply of housing has decreased. Either scenario would provide an alternative explanation for the increase in property values.
       Even assuming that Brookville’s rising property values are attributable to the restrictions on landscaping and house painting, the writer makes a false analogy that since the restrictions used by Brookville seven years ago tripled the property values, the ones in their community can get the same effect. The writer fails to consider the possible differences between Brookville and Deer haven Acres. It is entirely possible that the citizens in Deer haven Acres are less interested in their house’s exterior appearance than Brookville’s homeowners. So the consequence of adoption of the restrictions is that the home buyers in Deer haven Acres would find identical exterior appearance of house is distasteful, and that the restrictions actually tend to decrease the property values. The differences of the whole situations and styles of home should be taken into account. The styles of home structure in Brookville’s may have a great deal in common, so consistent exterior appearance can be feasible and acceptable while things can be the opposite in Deer haven Acres.
     Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the committee cannot assume that what resulted in rising property values in Brookville would bring about the same result in Deer haven Acres.
      In conclusion, to make me convinced that Deer haven Acres should adopt the restrictions, the writer should supply more persuasive evidence that the implementation of restriction, not some other factor, causes the increase of property values. Also, the writer should supply evidence to show there is no difference between Brookville and Deer haven Acres so that the analogy can be realized.

[ 本帖最后由 襄王有梦 于 2007-2-1 08:04 编辑 ]

txp139UID: 2237448

正文
     In this letter a committee of homeowners from the Deer haven Acres claims that in order to raise property values in Deer haven Acres, inhabitants should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting since the same measure used by homeowners in Brookville community seven years ago which tripled the average property values（这个句子感觉太长，WHICH后面的可以删掉）. To support this recommendation, the writer put forward some unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive. (and 后面开始有问题，主语逻辑有错误。我改了一下To support this recommendation, the writer put forward some unsubstantiated assumptions, therefore those are unpersuasive.)
     First of all, there is no direction causal relationship between the adoption of restrictions and the triple of property values in Brookville. As a matter of fact, the raise of property values in Deer haven Acres just only takes place behind the adoption of restrictions, and no more evidences shows that the latter causes(橙色的S去掉) former. On the other hand, the writer fails to ruled out the possibility that currency inflation has taken place during the seven years so that the averages of price of all the commodities have risen up a great deal. Also, property values are a function of supply and demand. Perhaps the demand for housing in the area has increased due to an influx of major employers. Or, perhaps the supply of housing has decreased. Either scenario would provide an alternative explanation for the increase in property values.
       Even assuming that Brookville’s rising property values are attributable to the restrictions on landscaping and house painting, the writer makes a false analogy that since the restrictions used(重复出现，可以用policy applied) by Brookville seven years ago tripled the property values, the ones in their community can get the same effect. The writer fails to consider the possible differences between Brookville and Deer haven Acres. It is entirely possible that the citizens in Deer haven Acres are less interested in their house’s exterior appearance than Brookville’s homeowners. So the consequence of adoption of the restrictions is that the home buyers in Deer haven Acres would find identical exterior appearance of house is distasteful, and that the restrictions actually tend to decrease the property values. The differences of the whole situations and styles of home should be taken into account. The styles of home structure in Brookville’s may have a great deal in common, so consistent exterior appearance can be feasible and acceptable while things can be the opposite in Deer haven Acres.
     Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the committee cannot assume that what resulted in rising property values in Brookville would bring about the same result in Deer haven Acres.（这个句子好像很有问题，我这样改一下 without accounting for all the possible dissimilarities, the committee can not assume that the policy cause the property rise in Brookville will be benefited in Deer haven Acres.）
      In conclusion, to make me convinced that Deer haven Acres should adopt the restrictions(这句我很汗，是不是可以改成in order to make the policy practicableness ),(这里感觉连接不连冠，) the writer should supply more persuasive evidences that the implementation of restriction(提供方案如何执行不一定是有说服力的证据吧), not some other factor, causes the increase of property values. Also, the writer should supply evidences to show there are not differences between Brookville and Deer haven Acres so that the analogy can be realized.