Argument2【0706G－CRUSADE小组】第2次作业 by vanlucker

vanluckerUID：2267009

题目：
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 house-painting."

1. It is not always reliable to argue by analogy, DA should consider the location, the type of community, the type of homeowner, etc.
2. Even if it is a reasonable analogy, however, the owner in B might adopted other strategies.
3. Perhaps B have tripled during the 7-years. Yet no evidence show it will also increase in value in future, maybe result in depreciation.
4. Even if it is a convincible recommend, the local homeowners might not accept such restrictions.

翻译：七年前，临近的Brookville社区的房屋业主采纳了一系列的限制措施来规范该社区的院子该如何来美化以及房屋的外墙该漆上什么颜色。从那时起，Brookville的地产均价翻了三番。为了提高Deerhaven Acres的地产价格，我们应该建立起一套自己的规范美化和上漆的限制措施。


     In this letter, the arguer recommends that the property values in Deerhaven Acres (DA) can be expect to rise by a set of restrictions. This recommendation is based on the observation that the property values have tripled in Brookville (B) due to adaptation of such restrictions. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.   
     First, the arguer draws his conclusion on the analogy between B and DA. However, it is not always reliable to argue by analogy. The increase of B’s property value might not be merely determined on the yards’ landscape or the house exteriors’ color. It is entirely possible that B is a business community where the property value might be influent affirmatively due to its well economy, while DA is an industry community where its air-polluting might negatively impact the property value. Or, perhaps the location of B is near seashore in which people can appreciate beautiful scenes and clean air, and contrarily DA locate in inland only with buildings and vehicles.   
    Secondly, even if it is a reasonable analogy, the arguer might overlook other factors that might have served the increase of B’s property values. Perhaps B’s committee has adopted other more effective strategies over those restrictions. It is possible that the economic policies of B served many companies’ investments well, and such policies might draw the potential investments from DA. Meanwhile, perhaps B offered more jobs due to its policy causing many companies to locate in B, and maybe these companies’ workers would like to buy house near the workplace.  Accordingly, such strategies might attract more people to live and more companies to invest in B, and the property values in B therefore increased.   
    Thirdly, given that increase of B’s property value just on account of the adaptation of such restriction the arguer advocated 7 years ago, it is no evidence to show that B’s property values will continue to appreciate. Maybe B’s property values have increased rapidly in the first several years, and it is entirely possible that B’s property values have increased slowly even depreciate in the last years. Thus, historical increase will not invalidate the arguer’s assumption.   
    Finally, perhaps DA might benefit from the recommendation; the arguer also overlooks the individuality of DA’s homeowner. It is impossible that everyone love his own yard with the similar landscape and color of others. In other word, everyone has their own favorites such as the individual landscape and color. The committee of DA cannot to enforce anyone on such absurd restriction that dismisses one’s individuality.   
    In sum, the recommend not only is logically unsound but also relies on a doubtful analogy. To strengthen the argument the arguer must modify the recommendation to account for other strategies to eliminate the confusion mentioned in the letter. The arguer must also provide B’s other significant information such as where B locates in, whether B has adopted other strategies in the 7 years, and whether B’s values are still increasing. Finally, the arguer also must show that the homeowners in DA would like to accept such restrictions.

这回好写点,但是语言本人太单一了,麻烦ROSE姐多指点,辛苦啦
先拜个早年~恭喜发财,预祝杀G成功~

[ 本帖最后由 vanlucker 于 2007-2-17 23:09 编辑 ]

rose_07UID：2276843

呵呵,过了年再来看啊

rose_07UID：2276843

In this letter, the arguer recommends that the property values in Deerhaven Acres (DA) can be expect to rise by a set of restrictions. This recommendation is based on the observation that the property values have tripled in Brookville (B) due to adaptation(adoption) of such restrictions. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.         First, the arguer draws his conclusion on the analogy between B and DA. However, it is not always reliable to argue by analogy(去掉). The increase of B’s property value might not be merely determined on(by) the yards’ landscape or the house exteriors’ color. It is entirely possible that B is a business community where the property value might be influent(?) affirmatively due to its well economy, while DA is an industry community where its air-polluting(polluted air) might negatively(have) impact the property value. Or, perhaps the location of B is near seashore in which( where) people can appreciate beautiful scenes and clean air, and contrarily DA locate(s) in(去掉) inland only with buildings and vehicles.        Secondly, even if it is a reasonable analogy, the arguer might overlook other factors that might have served the increase of B’s property values. Perhaps B’s committee has adopted other more effective strategies over(except) those restrictions. It is possible that the economic policies of B served many companies’ investments well, and such policies might draw the potential investments(?不太明白这个短语是什么意思) from DA. Meanwhile, perhaps B offered more jobs due to its policy causing many companies to locate in B, and maybe these companies’ workers would like to buy house near the workplace.  Accordingly, such strategies might attract more people to live and more companies to invest in B, and the property values in B therefore increased. 我觉得应该再解释一下,在B获得成功的政策在DA不一定能成功.       Thirdly, given that increase of B’s property value just on account of the adaptation(adoption) of such restriction (which) the arguer advocated(advocates) 7 years ago, it(there) is no evidence to show that B’s property values will continue to appreciate(不知道你想表达的是不是一直增长的意思,has been increasing). Maybe B’s property values have increased rapidly in the first several years, and it is entirely possible that B’s property values have increased slowly even depreciate(depreciated) in the last years. Thus, historical increase will not invalidate the arguer’s assumption.        Finally, perhaps DA might benefit from the recommendation; the arguer also overlooks the individuality of DA’s homeowner(两句话之间需要一个连词). It is impossible that everyone love(s) his own yard with the similar landscape and color of others(这句话太绝对了一些). In other word(s), everyone has their own favorites such as the individual landscape and color. The committee of DA cannot to enforce anyone on such absurd restriction that dismisses one’s individuality. 我觉得你这段把这个政策完全否定了,那么在B实行这个政策似乎也变得不合理了    In sum, the recommend not only is logically unsound but also relies on a doubtful analogy. To strengthen the argument the arguer must modify the recommendation to account for other strategies to eliminate the confusion mentioned in the letter. The arguer must also provide B’s other significant information such as where B locates in(去掉), whether B has adopted other strategies in the 7 years, and whether B’s values are still increasing. Finally, the arguer also must show that the homeowners in DA would like to accept such restrictions.

觉得有些可能性举得不是太合情理

vanluckerUID：2267009

明天改正,谢谢ROSE姐指教~