Agument2 [Victors小组]第1次作业

乳虎UID: 2251211

Agument2
提纲:
1The reason why average peoperty values in Brookville tripled is not the restriction adopted.
2Maybe the same restriction can not arise the property in deerhaven.
3The same restriction may not work.

In this letter, the arguer recommends adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. In order to suppert his recommendation, the arguer provide the evidence that average property values in nearby Brookville community tripled sine it had adopted such a set of retrictions seven years ago. At the first glance,the idea is reasonable though infact, the argynebt contain some merists which undermine the line of reasoning.

First of all, the auther falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that it were the restricuions that made average property values in Brookville tripled. In fact this is mot necessarily the case. There are many ceterminant of property values. For instence, it is possible that losts of migrants settled in Brookville commity, which brought large demand for homes. As a result, property vavlues  in Brookville tripled. Is is also possible that the supplu of new apartment was insufficient compared to the demad. Therefore, this argument is unwarranteed without ruling out such possibilities.


Even if seven years ago, restrictions on landscaping and housepainting can raise the average property values in Brookville, it is undermined whether the same restrictions work in Deerhaven Acres. Although these two towns are neighbers they have different recause endowment. Maybe, Brookville has particular endowment which render it suitable to develop tourism, so restrictions on landscaping and housepainting can make it more attractive to victors. Unless Deerhaven Arces has the same endowment, it can not make extra profit via the same restrictions.

Last but not the least seven years ago , Deerhaven Arres can raise property values by imitating Broodville community. It is presumptuons to conclude that the same restriction will make the same effect now. The reason why Brookville community tripled average property value via the restrictions is that it is unique then. Inevitablely there will be other towns to imitate it. But now it is possible that there are many semillar with Breekville, because other towns can not help to imitating it. Ignoring the dynamic process in market makes the arguer's conclusion unconvincing.

In sum, the arguer commit a serieries of crucial logical flaw, which made his conclusion not tenable as it standed.

[ 本帖最后由 乳虎 于 2007-4-20 16:00 编辑 ]

jennetrjUID: 2275453

In this letter, the arguer recommends adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting[in Deerhaven Acres]. In order to suppert his recommendation, the arguer provide[s] the evidence that average property values in nearby Brookville community tripled sin[c]e it had adopted such a set of retrictions seven years ago. At the first glance,the idea is reasonable though infact, the argynebt [argument]contain[s] some merists[merit是值得欣赏的意思，好像用在这里逻辑相反，挑个别的吧] which undermine the line of reasoning.

First of all, the auther falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that it were the restricu[t]ions that made average property values in Brookville tripled. In fact this is mot necessarily the case. There are many ceterminant of property values. For instence, it is possible that losts of migrants settled in Brookville commity, which brought large demand for homes. As a result, property vavlues  in Brookville tripled. Is is also possible that the supplu of new apartment was insufficient compared to the demad. Therefore, this argument is unwarranteed without ruling out such possibilities.


Even if seven years ago, restrictions on landscaping and housepainting can raise[increased] the average property values in Brookville, it is undermined[ 什么is undermined，undermined by what?] whether the same restrictions work in Deerhaven Acres. Although these two towns are neighbers they have different recause[?] endowment. Maybe, Brookville has particular endowment which render it suitable to develop tourism, so restrictions on landscaping and housepainting can make it more attractive to victors. Unless Deerhaven Arces has the same endowment, it can not make extra profit via the same restrictions.

Last but not the least[,] seven years ago , Deerhaven Arres can raise property values by imitating Broodville community. It is presumptuons to conclude that the same restriction will make the same effect now. The reason why Brookville community tripled average property value via the restrictions is that it is unique then. Inevitablely there will be other towns to imitate it. But now it is possible that there are many semillar [?]with Breekville,because other towns can not help to imitating it[？]. Ignoring the dynamic process in market makes the arguer's conclusion unconvincing.[我想，这段的意思是7年前B社区独特，因而升值，所以大家仿效了，独特之处就不再有价值和吸引力了，为何最后一句又提到市场需求变化？]

In sum, the arguer commit a serieries of crucial logical flaw, which made his conclusion not tenable as it standed.

文章指出了三处逻辑错误：restriction与B房屋升值的因果关系不明；7年前与现在的all things are equal; B 与D 的false analogy;
不知写作时间和字数，可能是PP3 限时的吧，好像结尾有些仓促。
努力！

乳虎UID: 2251211

In this letter, the arguer recommends adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting in Deerhaven Acres. In order to support his recommendation, the arguer provides the evidence that average property values in nearby Brookville community tripled since it had adopted such a set of restrictions seven years ago. At the first glance, the idea is reasonable though in fact, the argument contain some logical flaws which undermine the line of reasoning.
First of all, the auther falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that it were the restrictions that made average property values in Brookville tripled. In fact this is not necessarily the case. There are many determinants of property values. For instance, it is possible that lots of migrants settled in Brookville commity, which brought large demand for homes. As a result, property values  in Brookville tripled. Is is also possible that the supply of new apartment was insufficient compared to the demand. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibilities.

Even if seven years ago, restrictions on landscaping and housepainting can raise the average property values in Brookville, it is open to doubt whether the same restrictions work in Deerhaven Acres. Although these two towns are neighbors they have different resource endowment. Maybe, Brookville has particular endowment which render it suitable to develop tourism, so restrictions on landscaping and housepainting can make it more attractive to victors. Unless Deerhaven Arces has the same endowment, it can not make extra profit via the same restrictions.
Last but not the least , seven years ago , Deerhaven Arres can raise property values by imitating Broodville community. It is presumptuous to conclude that the same restriction will have the same effect now. The reason why Brookville community tripled average property value via the restrictions is that it is unique then. Inevitably there will be other towns to imitate it. But now it is possible that there are many similar towns with Breekville.  Ignoring that crucial point makes the arguer's conclusion unconvincing.
In sum, the arguer commits a series of crucial logical flaw, which made his conclusion not tenable as it standed. In order to consolidate it, the arguer has to provide the evidence that indicate that the restriction on the landscaping and housepainting is responsible to the increase of property values,  the evidence that indicate that other  relevant factors in  Deerhaven Acres are same with in  Brookville and the evidence that indicate that  the same restriction will work now.