ARGUMENT2 [Victors]作文小组第二次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

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."

45min,   505 words



In this letter, the committee of homeowners of Deerhaven Acres recommends to set the restriction on landscaping and house painting in order to increase the property values. To justify this recommendation, the author points out that the nearby Brookville accomplished such strategy seven years ago so that the average house values increased two times. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that value of any property in Brookville increased since average property values tripled. There's no evidence indicated in the passage to support it. It is totally possible that only 10% of property there increased tremendously, while most part of houses dropped, which made the average figure stayed in a high level. Or perhaps the value of commercial buildings in Brookville roared in recent years, but home buildings still remain the same price or even cheaper. Without eliminate or even consider such possibilities, the author could not convince me to accept the assumption that any property in Brookville increased its value.

Even if any house in Brookville costs much more than it used to be, no warrant could be made that such change is due to the restrictions on community house appearance. The only reason provided in the letter is the chronological orders between these two events, which could hardly establish the causal relationship between them. Maybe the macro-environment of the economy improved in these years and any other properties, such as securities and stock, increased much more. Or real estates in any other places without such restrictions also tripled or even increase more. Without such restriction, the value of properties in Brookville might be much higher than it is now. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine author's point of view that adopting such restriction would do good to property values.

Furthermore, even the strategy could increase the property value in Brookville, the author showed no evidence that the same thing will happen in Deerhaven Acres if the community adopts the restriction. Maybe residents in Deerhaven Acres prefer their house to be individual and won't follow the restriction, or there is quite the possibility that identical appearance would ruin the distinctive style of the region. Author's overlooking of the difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres renders the assumption base on it highly suspect.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence--maybe by more statistical information--to show that the property value of any houses in Brookville increased, and such improvement should be responsible for the restriction of landscaping and house painting of the community buildings. In addition, the author should ensure us that residents in Deerhaven Acres will do what the restriction inquires for the appearance of the houses thus engenders the property value here increases as what happened in nearby Brookville. To better evaluate the argument, we need to know if there is any disadvantage for homeowners to have their houses under such restriction.

乳虎UID: 2251211

Jennetrj改文章大刀阔斧，畅快淋漓，我喜欢！

45min,   505 words

In this letter, the committee of homeowners of Deerhaven Acres recommends to set（setting） the restriction on landscaping and house painting in order to increase the property values. To justify this recommendation, the author points out that the nearby Brookville accomplished such strategy seven years ago so that the average house values increased two times（twice）. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that value of any property in Brookville increased since average property values tripled. There's no evidence indicated in the passage to support it. It is totally possible that only 10% of property there increased tremendously, while most part of houses dropped, which made the average figure stayed in a high level. Or perhaps the value of commercial buildings in Brookville roared in recent years, but home buildings still remain the same price or even cheaper. Without eliminate（eliminating） or even consider（considering） such possibilities, the author could not convince me to accept the assumption that any property in Brookville increased its value.（Good point！注意到了这项政策引起的分配问题。最好阐释一下共同富裕的必要性。）

Even if any house in Brookville costs much more than it used to （be）, no warrant could be made that such change is due to the restrictions on community house appearance. The only reason provided in the letter is the chronological orders between these two events, which could hardly establish（support） the causal relationship between them. Maybe the macro-environment of the economy improved in these years and any other properties, such as securities and stock, increased much more. Or real estates in any other places without such restrictions also tripled or even increase more. Without such restriction, the value of properties in Brookville might be much higher than it is now. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine author's point of view that adopting such restriction would do good to property values.

Furthermore, even the strategy could increase the property value in Brookville, the author showed no evidence that the same thing will happen in Deerhaven Acres if the community adopts the restriction. Maybe residents in Deerhaven Acres prefer their house to be individual and won't follow the restriction, or there is quite the possibility that identical appearance would ruin the distinctive style of the region. Author's overlooking of the difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres renders the assumption base（based） on it highly suspect.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence--maybe by more statistical information--to show that the property value of any houses in Brookville increased, and such improvement should be responsible for the restriction of landscaping and house painting of the community buildings. In addition, the author should ensure us that residents in Deerhaven Acres will do what the restriction inquires for the appearance of the houses thus engenders the property value here increases as what happened in nearby Brookville. To better evaluate the argument, we need to know if there is any disadvantage for homeowners to have their houses under such restriction.

这篇Agument没什么问题,小修小补而已.

[ 本帖最后由 乳虎 于 2007-4-22 10:06 编辑 ]