Argument2 【SWEETBOX】第三次作业 by 小破孩

小破孩UID: 2125288

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 house painting."

Words: 478 Time: More than 1 hr

The above argument is not cogent by mistaking the correlation as a causal relationship. Without thoroughly examine the determinants raising property value in Deerhaven Acres (DA), the arguer recommends applying landscaping restrictions to Brookville (B) which makes the suggestion unconvincing.

First of all, no persuasive supports indicate the landscaping and exterior appearance of the house are the main causes of the property value increase. Myriads of other alternatives may be account for the raising value. For example, the convenience design of the infrastructure, the style of the inner establishment, the location and natural environment surrounding the area, the accessibility to the traffic center or shopping center, superior clinical services, considerate community services, security guarantee, etc, all of which might be the priority concern of different customers. In addition, the development of local economy, industrialization or prosperous of tourism would also add values to the property. At the same time, we cannot neglect the strategies the investors used to promote the community houses in DA. Therefore, by only mimicking the regulations upon the outer design of the house cannot earn much property value raise in B.

Secondly, even if we concede that it is the very restriction on landscaping makes the property in DA more valuable, whether the same succeed is applicable in B is open to doubt. We don’t know whether DA and B are comparable in terms of property value without characteristic features of these two areas. It is quite possible that DA was a less developed region in the passed, with small number of residents and no additional industry support for the local economy, the triple value of the property might due to the strikingly original low value whereas B is already a highly established city with little room for value increase. Also, the restrictions upon the exterior of the houses in DA might be meant to prevent the religion belief confliction due to the diverse compositions of residents whereas in B, most of the habitants are of the same culture background.

Moreover, even assuming that the property value of B has large space to increase, whether these restrictions are still effectiveness after seven years is suspected. Fashion changes dramatically with seasons. Seven years ago, the conformed design of houses might be reflect well organization and careful concerning to the residents whereas seven years later, however, uniqueness is respected and these restrictions might be considered as dull, lazy or stupid or even dwindle people’s interests in the house. Further, if the investors could predict the local market preference in B before hand, why should they bother copying the method used elsewhere?

Given the analysis above, we can conclude that the argument lacks credibility. The application to copy the regulation upon houses’ outer decoration method from DA to B without thorough substantiation renders it unpersuasive. Without detail information about DA and B, the recommendation cannot be adoptable.

genie05UID: 30358

2,3段是不是该换下顺序？

小破孩UID: 2125288

呵呵，偶也是写完了才发现，不过先摆着大家拍吧，我再改~~~呵呵

发现每次写的时候经常会写这些这就忘了outline了，所以觉得考试给纸笔写提纲还是有道理的~~~

genie05UID: 30358

你的头像呢？这个ID俺还是有点印象的。
读完题目先写提纲！这个是重点。

小破孩UID: 2125288

貌似变成高级会员以后偶就被砍头了~~~

偶是先写提纲的，不过写body的时候写这些这就忘了~~~谁让俺还同时做着实验呢~~~不过最近比较黑，不，是特别特别的黑仔~~~不提了~~~

大家拍砖啊~~~

sara0522UID: 2336981

The above argument is not cogent by mistaking the correlation as a causal relationship. Without thoroughly examine the determinants raising property value in Deerhaven Acres (DA), the arguer recommends applying landscaping restrictions to Brookville (B) which makes the suggestion unconvincing.

First of all, no persuasive supports indicate the landscaping and exterior appearance of the house are the main causes of the property value increase. Myriads of other alternatives may be account for the raising value. For example, the convenience design of the infrastructure, the style of the inner establishment, the location and natural environment surrounding the area, the accessibility to the traffic center or shopping center, superior clinical services, considerate community services, security guarantee, etc, all of which might be the priority concern of different customers. In addition, the development of local economy, industrialization or prosperous of tourism would also add values to the property. At the same time, we cannot neglect the strategies the investors used to promote the community houses in DA. Therefore, by only mimicking the regulations upon the outer design of the house cannot earn much property value raise in B.(很透)

Secondly, even if we concede that it is the very restriction on landscaping makes the property in DA more valuable, whether the same succeed is applicable in B is open to doubt. We don’t know whether DA and B are comparable in terms of property value without characteristic features of these two areas. It is quite possible that DA was a less developed region in the passed, with small number of residents and no additional industry support for the local economy, the triple value of the property might due to the strikingly original low value whereas B is already a highly established city with little room for value increase. Also, the restrictions upon the exterior of the houses in DA might be meant to prevent the religion belief confliction(不同更不能统一了,美国人没有这种以统一的形式来消除差异的概念吧) due to the diverse compositions of residents whereas in B, most of the habitants are of the same culture background.

Moreover, even assuming that the property value of B has large space to increase, whether these restrictions are still effectiveness after seven years is suspected. Fashion changes dramatically with seasons. Seven years ago, the conformed design of houses might be reflect well organization and careful concerning to the residents whereas seven years later, however, uniqueness is respected and these restrictions might be considered as dull, lazy or stupid or even dwindle people’s interests in the house. Further, if the investors could predict the local market preference in B before hand, why should they bother copying the method used elsewhere?

Given the analysis above, we can conclude that the argument lacks credibility. The application to copy the regulation upon houses’ outer decoration method from DA to B without thorough substantiation renders it unpersuasive. Without detail information about DA and B, the recommendation cannot be adoptable.

(LZ的模版已经相当熟练了,分析也很透~~~~学习)

小破孩UID: 2125288

呵呵，多谢sara 我想我第二段的那个意思是说，如果某个宗教将一些设计或者颜色认为是不好的或者不能接受的，而对于其他人来说又没有什么的，那我们就避免使用这些可能引起冲突的颜色或设计而不是说统一了就没有问题了，呵呵，没说清楚，多谢修改