argument2

rose_07UID：2276843

Argument 2
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: 577          TIME: 1:06:36          DATE: 2007-2-16


outline:
1. false causal relationship between the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting and the increase property values.
2.the average property values increase indicates that also some property values declines.
3. false analogy of Brookville and Deerhaven Acres.
4. there may be other ways to increase the property values in DA, and restrictions on landscaping and housepainting may not increase the values.

The arguer recommends that the homeowners from Deerhaven Acres (DA) should restrict the landscaping of the community's yards and the housepainting of all the houses in DA to increase the property values. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer cites the successful example in Brookville, where restrictions were adopted and average property values have tripled. The arguer assumes that what Brookville adopts is also suitable for DA. The argument suffers from several logic flaws.

To begin with, the arguer establishes a false causal relationship between the adoption of the set of house restrictions in Brookville and the increased average property values. Since no evidence is provided how the regulated community's yards and the beautiful exteriors of homes attract the potential buyers, which consequently leads to the tripled average property values, we can not rule out other possibilities why the property values averagely increase so dramatically. Perhaps the increase of property values may have nothing to do with the restrictions, just due to the development of local economy. It is also entirely possible that during the past seven years, Brookville has become a new tourist resort from an ordinary town, attracting thousands of tourists every year. Without considering these and other possibilities, the arguer can not attribute the increase of property values only to the set of restrictions on community's yards and houses.

Secondly, the average increase indicates that there may be still values of some houses declining, which the arguer fails to take into consideration. Perhaps, such declination is, on the contrary, owing to the restriction, which makes the landscape of yards too union to be acceptable for some people. If that is the case, the restrictions should be abolished rather then advocated.

Even if the increase of average property values in Brookville is largely due to the adoption of the restrictions on yards and houses, the analogy between Brookville and DA is still dubious. Perhaps, the Brookville is an industrial city, where the property values increase with its industry, while DA is a tourist one, where the property values have already been so high that a rapid increase is hardly to be realized. Given that the restrictions are performed in DA, it is also probably that the potential buyers will regard all the yards and houses lacking individual features, to which they may attach great importance. If so, the sales of the property may even drop, let alone any increase of property values. Therefore, unless the arguer provides enough evidence that the restricted landscape of the community yards and the colors of the exteriors of homes will attract local buyers, we can not accept the simply imitated restrictions from Brookville to DA.

Moreover, without considering whether the adoption of the restrictions is the only way to increase the local property values in DA, the arguer arbitrarily rule out other methods. Maybe launching an advertising champion will draw more attention of house-hunters so as to increase the sales of property in DA. Meanwhile, the homeowners can put more emphasis on the structure of the houses rather than the outlooks. After all people may concern more about the practicibility and function of houses.

In conclusion, the recommendation is unconvincing based on the above analysis. The arguer should offer more evidence that the adoption of restrictions in Brookville is the main cause for its tripled property values and that the similar restrictions will be acceptable for house-hunters in DA. Otherwith, the arguer is simply begging the question throughout the argument.

[ 本帖最后由 rose_07 于 2007-2-16 14:05 编辑 ]

vanluckerUID：2267009

The arguer recommends that the homeowners from Deerhaven Acres (DA) should restrict the landscaping（landscape n.） of the community's yards and the housepainting(exterior painting) of all the houses in DA to increase the property values. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer cites the successful example in Brookville, where restrictions were adopted and (therefore) average property values have tripled. The arguer assumes that what Brookville adopts is also suitable for DA. The argument suffers from several logic flaws.
To begin with, the arguer establishes a false causal relationship between the adoption of the set of house restrictions in Brookville and (感觉采用和升值一对为因果关系合适点,我有点糊涂了呵呵,或许你这一对更好,麻烦指点下)the increased average property values(the increase of its average values??). Since no evidence is provided how the regulated community's yards and the beautiful exteriors of homes(houses) attract the potential buyers, which consequently leads to the tripled average property values, we can not rule out other possibilities why the property values averagely increase so dramatically. Perhaps the increase of property values may have nothing to do with the restrictions, just due to the development of local economy. It is also entirely possible that during the past seven years, Brookville has become a new tourist resort from an ordinary town, attracting thousands of tourists every year. Without considering these and other possibilities, the arguer can not attribute the increase of property values only to the set of restrictions on community's yards and houses.
Secondly(只有一个第二,这样会不会有点突兀?), the average increase indicates that there may be still values of some houses declining, which the arguer fails to take into consideration. Perhaps, such declination is, on the contrary, owing to the restriction, which makes the landscape of yards too union(uniform) to be acceptable for some people. If that is the case, the restrictions should be abolished rather than advocated.(这个例子想法有个性,赞)
Even if the increase of average property values in Brookville is largely due to the adoption of the restrictions on yards and houses, the analogy between Brookville and DA is still dubious. Perhaps, the Brookville is (is àlocate in )an industrial city, where the property values increase with its industry, while DA is a tourist one, where the property values have already been so high that a rapid increase is hardly to be realized(好理由,佩服). Given that the restrictions are performed in DA, it is also probably that the potential buyers will regard all the yards and houses lacking individual features, to which they may attach great importance(好句子,赞). If so, the sales of the property may even drop, let alone any increase of property values. Therefore, unless the arguer provides enough evidence that the restricted landscape of the community yards and the colors of the exteriors of homes will attract local(为什么是当地的?) buyers, we can not accept the simply(simple) imitated restrictions from Brookville to DA.
Moreover, without considering whether the adoption of the restrictions is the only way to increase the local property values in DA, the arguer arbitrarily rule out other methods(好像没有武断的排除其他方法,只是提出一个而已). Maybe launching an advertising champion will draw more attention of house-hunters so as to increase the sales of property in DA. Meanwhile, the homeowners can put more emphasis on the structure of the houses rather than the outlooks. After all(,) people may concern more about the practicability(实用性包括function吧?) and function of houses.
In conclusion, the recommendation is unconvincing based on the above analysis. The arguer should offer more evidence that the adoption of restrictions in Brookville is the main cause for its tripled property values and that the similar restrictions will be acceptable for house-hunters in DA. Otherwise, the arguer is simply begging the question throughout the argument.

好文,论点很充分,句型丰富,etc.
顺便学点句子

[ 本帖最后由 vanlucker 于 2007-2-18 00:50 编辑 ]

rose_07UID：2276843

谢谢指点！

The arguer recommends that the homeowners from Deerhaven Acres (DA) should restrict the landscape of the community's yards and the exterior painting of all the houses in DA to increase the property values. To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer cites the successful example in Brookville, where restrictions were adopted and therefore average property values have tripled. The arguer assumes that what Brookville adopts is also suitable for DA. The argument suffers from several logic flaws.

To begin with, the arguer establishes a false causal relationship between the adoption of the set of house restrictions in Brookville andthe increased average property values. Since no evidence is provided how the regulated community's yards and the beautiful exteriors of houses attract the potential buyers, which consequently leads to the tripled average property values, we can not rule out other possibilities why the property values averagely increase so dramatically. Perhaps the increase of property values may have nothing to do with the restrictions, just due to the development of local economy. It is also entirely possible that during the past seven years, Brookville has become a new tourist resort from an ordinary town, attracting thousands of tourists every year. Without considering these and other possibilities, the arguer can not attribute the increase of property values only to the set of restrictions on community's yards and houses.

Furthermore, the average increase indicates that there may be still values of some houses declining, which the arguer fails to take into consideration. Perhaps, such declination is, on the contrary, owing to the restriction, which makes the landscape of yards too uniform to be acceptable for some people. If that is the case, the restrictions should be abolished rather than advocated.

Even if the increase of average property values in Brookville is largely due to the adoption of the restrictions on yards and houses, the analogy between Brookville and DA is still dubious. Perhaps, the Brookville isan industrial city, where the property values increase with its industry, while DA is a tourist one, where the property values have already been so high that a rapid increase is hardly to be realized. Given that the restrictions are performed in DA, it is also probably that the potential buyers will regard all the yards and houses lacking individual features, to which they may attach great importance. If so, the sales of the property may even drop, let alone any increase of property values. Therefore, unless the arguer provides enough evidence that the restricted landscape of the community yards and the colors of the exteriors of homes will attract those buyers, we can not accept the simple imitated restrictions from Brookville to DA.

Moreover, without considering whether the adoption of the restrictions is the only way to increase the local property values in DA, the arguer arbitrarily rule out other methods. Maybe launching an advertising champion will draw more attention of house-hunters so as to increase the sales of property in DA. Meanwhile, the homeowners can put more emphasis on the structure of the houses rather than the outlooks. After all, people may concern more about the practicability of houses.

In conclusion, the recommendation is unconvincing based on the above analysis. The arguer should offer more evidence that the adoption of restrictions in Brookville is the main cause for its tripled property values and that the similar restrictions will be acceptable for house-hunters in DA. Otherwise, the arguer is simply begging the question throughout the argument.