Argument2 拍拍～～有点问题同时请教一下

maiqidiliwuUID: 2119412

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: 354          TIME: 上午 0:53:16          DATES: 2007-2-11

   The committee suggests adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting in Deerhaven Acres (DA). The evidence cited is that average property values have soared in nearby Brookville Acres (BA) after local residents have adopted a set of restriction of such sort. However I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.
    First, no evidence has been offered to support the assumption that the reason of the property's uprise is those restrictions. While the appearance of the yards and houses in the community is an important contributing factor to the value of property, it is not the only such factor. Many other reasons could just as likely account for the increase of value. Perhaps a very good university or high school has settled here. In order to let children get admitted by it , many family want to set their house in this community which causes the property value to increase. Or that a new subway station has opened near BA, which suffers a lot for its inconvenient traffic in the past. Consequencely, more people would like to live in BA now and the price soars naturally. Or that maybe the inflation has also tripled over seven years so the tripled property value has nothing to do with BA itself. In short, without considering and ruling out alternative explanations for the uprise, the committee cannot reach his or her conclusion.
    Secondly even if the uprise of BA's property mainly lies on the restriction, we still need more evidence to demonstrate that the method suits to BA will have the same influence on DA. Possibly BA is a community with attractive view and convenient trafficin that these restrictions add more beauty and attract more people. Yet meanwhile DA has a awful traffic where you even have to take pains to buy your commodity. So it is no use for DA to follow BA's example, the property value will remain as the past if the traffic has not been improved.  
    In conclusion, the committee's argument is specious. To bolster it she or he must provide detailed information about the two communities and the whole society’s economic condition.



[ 本帖最后由 maiqidiliwu 于 2007-2-11 23:49 编辑 ]

showerqiUID: 2301650

The committee suggests adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting in Deerhaven Acres (DA). The evidence cited is that average property values have soared in nearby Brookville Acres (BA) after local residents have adopted a set of restriction of such sort. However I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.
    First, no evidence has been offered to support the assumption that the reason of the property's uprise is (due to) those restrictions. While the appearance of the yards and houses in the community is an important contributing factor to the value of property, it is not the only such factor(factors). Many other reasons could just as likely account for (result in) the increase of value (possibly). Perhaps a very good university or high school has settled here. In order to let children get admitted by it , many family want to set their house in this community which causes the property value to increase (lead to value increase). Or that a new subway station has opened near BA, which suffers a lot for its inconvenient traffic in the past. Consequencely, more people would like to live in BA now and the price soars naturally. Or that maybe(It is even possible that) the inflation has also tripled over seven years so the tripled property value has nothing to do with BA itself. In short, without considering and ruling out alternative explanations for the uprise, the committee cannot reach his or her conclusion.
    Secondly even if the uprise of BA's property mainly lies on the restriction, we still need more evidence to demonstrate that the method suits to BA will have the same influence on DA. Possibly BA is a community with attractive view and convenient trafficin that these restrictions add more beauty and attract more people. Yet meanwhile DA has a awful traffic where you even have to take pains to buy your commodity. So it is no use for DA to follow BA's example, the property value will remain as the past if the traffic has not been improved.  
    In conclusion, the committee's argument is specious. To bolster it she or he must provide detailed information about the two communities and the whole society’s economic condition.

[ 本帖最后由 showerqi 于 2007-2-11 21:00 编辑 ]

maiqidiliwuUID: 2119412

恩
的确我的语言有点变化了
此外，使用or or。。。好呢？－－－有排比的气势，我自己觉得
还是后面变化一下，改为 even possible that 。。。。。。。

征求大家的意见