argument2 第二次作业

ghost33UID: 2267869

由于电脑出问题，这篇也没有限时

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: 444                   DATE: 2007-4-20

In this argument, the arguer recommends all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres to adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise property values there. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites the example of homeowners in Brookville which enjoyed tripled average property values since they adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exterior of homes should be painted seven years ago. However, this argument is not as convincing as it stands.

First, as the argument stands, we can only get that the average property values tripled in Brookville after the adoptions. In other words, the two only have some correlations, but no clear causal relationship. It is equally possible that there are some other reasons why the average values tripled. For example, maybe with the development of Brookville, more and more people rushed in which led the need of homes raise; or maybe the economic changes in that way everything's value tripled during this seven years. We cannot accept the assumed causal relationship between the average property values' raise and the adoption of the set of restrictions unless the arguer can rule out other probabilities.

Second, the arguer only said that the average property values tripled which do not necessarily means all the homeowners in Brookville enjoy such raise. Given that after the adoption of the set of restrictions in Brookville, some homeowners' property value declined while others hiked more than three times or remained the same, the arguer's recommendation to all the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres would be better to stay dubious, without specific information which shows the adoption will bring good results to all.   

Third, even it is true that the adoption in Brookville did make the property value raise, we cannot take it granted that homeowners in Deerhaven Acres will get raise in property values after adoption of a set of restrictions simply because it happened in Brookville. On one hand, the adoption in Brookville was conducted seven years ago, things happened during the seven years may undermine the effect. On the other hand, there is no evidence which shows that the two places' conditions coincide in every aspect. And lacking such evidence, the recommendation will be some kind of hasty analogy.

In conclusion, this argument is not well substantiated. To better support the conclusion, the arguer should accumulate more evidences which can prove the causal relationship between the restrictions and the raise. And, details of the average property values' raise are needed to convince us that such adoption is true to everyone. To bolster the arguer's recommendation, information of the similarity between the two places is necessary.

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

开头不用restate
尽量将body充实一些，开头结尾可以省略一些。

菲子UID: 2311527

In this argument, the arguer recommends all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres to adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values there. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites the example of homeowners in Brookville which enjoyed tripled average property values since they adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exterior of homes should be painted seven years ago. However, this argument is not as convincing as it stands.First, as the argument stands, we can only get that the average property values tripled in Brookville after the adoptions. In other words, the two only have some correlations, but no clear causal relationship. It is equally possible that there are some other reasons why the average values tripled. For example, maybe with the development of Brookville, more and more people rushed in which led the need of homes raise; or maybe the economic changes in that way everything's value tripled during this seven years. We cannot accept the assumed causal relationship between the average property values' raise and the adoption of the set of restrictions unless the arguer can rule out other probabilities.Second, the arguer only said that the average property values tripled which do not necessarily means all the homeowners in Brookville enjoy such raise. Given that after the adoption of the set of restrictions in Brookville, some homeowners' property value declined while others hiked more than three times or remained the same, the arguer's recommendation to all the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres would be better to stay dubious, without specific information which shows the adoption will bring good results to all.   Third, even it is true that the adoption in Brookville did make the property value raise, we cannot take it granted that homeowners in Deerhaven Acres will get raise in property values after adoption of a set of restrictions simply because it happened in Brookville. On one hand, the adoption in Brookville was conducted seven years ago, things happened during the seven years may undermine the effect. On the other hand, there is no evidence which shows that the two places' conditions coincide in every aspect（批驳力度不够，最好进一步解释说明原因，比如举出两个城市很不相同的地方，可以导致效果不好）. And lacking such evidence, the recommendation will be some kind of hasty analogy.In conclusion, this argument is not well substantiated. To better support the conclusion, the arguer should accumulate more evidences which can prove the causal relationship between the restrictions and the raise. And, details of the average property values' raise are needed to convince us that such adoption is true to everyone. To bolster the arguer's recommendation, information of the similarity between the two places is necessary.
  我认为第1个理由和第2个理由可以调换一下位置，先说数据本身的问题，再说数据与规定的因果相关是否成立，这样在逻辑上更为合理。