Argument2 【Persistence小组】第8次作业

Andy85UID: 2250503

A2
B区7年前同一了房子的外观，房价上涨——外观同一就会使房价上涨——为了提高D市房价，也应同一外观
1 B市房价上涨，真的是同一外观的功劳？也许有其它原因，比如交通便利了，建立了新的商业区，社区内部设施提高
2 即使B市房价提高确实是同一外观的功劳，B和D是两个不同的地方，论者没有在两地间的交通，公共设施和房子结构之间做比较，所以不能把B市的经验直接搬到D市。而且D市现在的房价没有告诉我们，也许D市原来房价就已经很高，B市房价涨了3倍以后，还不如D，照搬B市的经验没有任何好处。

The arguer asserts that if homeowners in Deerhaven Acres hope to raise the property value, they should adopt a set of restrictions on
landscaping and housepainting, for the reason that such measures proved successful as the average property values have tripled in
Brookville after they takes similar measures. However, I'm afraid the arguer is a little naive to draw such a conclusion.

First, whether the increase of the property value should be attributed to the restrictions on the community's yards and the colors of
exteriors of the houses? There might be many other reasons, such as the instruments of the community has been improved during the past seven years, or the traffic condition has been ameliorated as a new and wide road has been built. Thus, as the arguer doesn't
provide us with sufficient information about Brookville, it is irrational for the homeowners to expect their property value to increase just
because they learn a surficial lesson from others' success.

Secondly, even if the increase of Brookville's property value is a result of the restrictions, it is also too hasty for Deerhaven Acres to
introduce the same measures, because of the differences between two communities in traffic condition, the structures of the houses,
and the instruments in the communities. Further more, there is no evidence in the statement that the property value is low is
Deerhaven. If the property value of Brookville is lower than that of Deerhaven even after its increase, it might be bootless for the
homeowners to learn from Brookville.

To conclude, if the arguer wants to make the statement more convincing, there is still much work to do. More information about
Brookville should be gathered and detailed comparison between houses of two different communities should be made. It would
produce a counterproductive result if we jump to a conclusion with no second examination.

欣馨之火UID: 2183210

The arguer asserts that if homeowners in Deerhaven Acres hope to raise the property value, they should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, for the reason that such measures proved successful as the average property values have tripled in Brookville after they takes similar measures. However, I'm afraid the arguer is a little naive to draw such a conclusion.

First, whether the increase of the property value should be attributed to the restrictions on the community's yards and the colors of exteriors of the houses? There might be many other reasons, such as the instruments of the community has been improved during the past seven years, or the traffic condition has been ameliorated as a new and wide road has been built. Thus, as the arguer doesn't provide us with sufficient information about Brookville, it is irrational for the homeowners to expect their property value to increase just because they learn a surficial （surficial这个词我的word2000居然认为它是错误单词，大概是它不常用吧。查阅金山词霸2005版，给出了“地表的，表面的”等意思，看了一下相关英语解释，多用于“地表的”一意，属于地质词汇。这么用是否合适，请斟酌。老实说我也不太清楚。）lesson from others' success.

Secondly, even if the increase of Brookville's property value is a result of the restrictions, it is also too hasty for Deerhaven Acres to introduce the same measures, because of the differences between two communities in traffic condition, the structures of the houses, and the instruments in the communities. Further more, there is no evidence in the statement that the property value is low is Deerhaven. If the property value of Brookville is lower than that of Deerhaven even after its increase, it might be bootless for the homeowners to learn from Brookville.

To conclude, if the arguer wants to make the statement more convincing, there is still much work to do. More information about Brookville should be gathered and detailed comparison between houses of two different communities should be made. It would produce a counterproductive result if we jump to a conclusion with no second examination.

1.       第一印象，字数稍微偏少，当然，这不是大问题。（修锐翻译的北美范文中，建议中国学生A的字数为350～400字，I的字数为400～450字比较合适。仅供参考）
2.       从文章的思想性、结构性来看，没有大问题。论证基本还是能够说服人的。
3.  从思想性的一些建议（主要为了凑字数）：首先，文章中说B采取了一定的限制措施，但是，没有说B的居民是否遵守了这个措施，所以，限制措施和房价上升不一定有关系（这一点是北美范文上的第一点）；其次，即便B的居民实施了这些限制，那么，正好是你的第一点；再次，你的第二点也是一个攻击点；最后，D的居民是否喜欢这种限制，没有民意调查，如果D的居民不喜欢，大家的都离开，反而会因为人气不枉，而是当地不能吸引更多的人去买房子而使得低价降低（这是我自己想的，自己也在写作中用到）。

[ 本帖最后由 欣馨之火 于 2007-2-9 20:32 编辑 ]