argument2 【0710G superstar作文小组】第五次作业

totalsm45518UID: 2286658

In this letter, the argument recommends that Deerhaven should learn from the actions fo Brookville community to set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To support this conclusion, the arguer cites the fact that homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on their house and subsequently the tripled increase of property values in Brookville. However, this argument lacks of sufficient evidence and is unconvincing.

To begin with, the arguer notes the action taken by homeowners to adopt a set of restrictions on the ways of landscaping the yards and the colors painted on the exteriors of homes, which he thinks to have a correlation with the increase of average property values in Brookville. However, there is no evidence to support this assumption. The arguer fails to take into account of other factors that may result in the tripled price. Maybe the local government of Brookville has been carrying out a series of privilege or policies to attract more people living there. Or it is very possible that there have been an increase in demand of housing and estate, which leading the enhanced average property values according to the classic regulation of price and demands. Ignoring all other effects and factors, the arguer cannot oversimplify the conclusion that it is the set of restriction taken in Brookville that has led the tripled price of estates there.

Secondly, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy. Granted that the restriction in Brookville does have helped enhance the price of property, there is no certainly guarantee that it will have the same result if taken in Deerhaven, without comparing the two characteristics of the different towns. Maybe the house arrangement and painting colors in Deerhaven are much better and more beautiful than those in Brookville, which means that there is no need for Deerhaven to set up a similar restriction as Brookville. What’s more, the arguer fails to rule out some other reasons that may prevent the price of properties in Deerhaven from increasing continuously. Maybe it is the impure and non-fresh air to breathe in Deerhaven that makes it not as attractive as Brookville. Or maybe it is the less convenient traffic condition and more blocks from metropolitans that distract its brilliant as a best choice for living. In such cases, the governors in Deerhaven must make out their own solution and strategies to make their estate more expensive and value more, instead of simply copying the experience from another town.

At last but not the least, the arguer cites the action taken by seven years ago, which is a long time to have a great many changes and which cannot be so authoritative at present. There is no exact information about the reaction of price when this restriction first came out, which might be entirely unpopular. What’s more, the arguer mentions nothing about the present situation in Brookville, where those arrangement and painting colors have disappeared for a long time. Consequently the arguer’s assumption is unreasonable and lacks of sufficient evidence.

To sum up, the arguer comes out the final conclusion of have the similar restriction in Deerhaven too quickly and simply, which is unconvincing as it stands. To better support this suggestion, the arguer must provide much more supportive evidence to demonstrate that having such restrictions thus help enhancing values of properties in Brookville, as well as in Deerhaven. Moreover, the arguer should also take into account of other factors that may result the price of estate besides this restriction.

sosoxiaoyanUID: 2194648

In this letter, the argumentrecommends that Deerhaven should learn from the actions fo Brookvillecommunity to set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. Tosupport this conclusion, the arguer cites the fact that homeowners innearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on theirhouse and subsequently the tripled increase of property values inBrookville. However, this argument lacks of sufficient evidence and isunconvincing.

To begin with, the arguer notes theaction taken by homeowners to adopt a set of restrictions on the waysof landscaping the yards and the colors painted on the exteriors ofhomes, which he thinks to have a correlation with the increase ofaverage property values in Brookville. However, there is no evidence tosupport this assumption. The arguer fails to take into account of otherfactors that may result in the tripled price. Maybe the localgovernment of Brookville has been carrying out a series of privilege orpolicies to attract more people living there. Or it is very possiblethat there have been an increase in demand of housing and estate, whichleading the enhanced average property values according to the classicregulation of price and demands. Ignoring all other effects andfactors, the arguer cannot oversimplify the conclusion that it is theset of restriction taken in Brookville that has led the tripled priceof estates there.

Secondly, the arguer commits afallacy of false analogy. Granted that the restriction in Brookvilledoes have helped enhance the price of property, there is no certainlyguarantee that it will have the same result if 缺少主语 taken in Deerhaven,without comparing the two characteristics of the different towns. Maybethe house arrangement and painting colors in Deerhaven are much betterand more beautiful than those in Brookville, which means that there isno need for Deerhaven to set up a similar restriction as Brookville.What’s more, the arguer fails to rule out some other reasons that mayprevent the price of properties in Deerhaven from increasingcontinuously. Maybe it is the impure polluted and non-fresh air to breathe inDeerhaven that makes it is not as attractive as Brookville. Or maybe it isthe less convenient traffic condition and more blocks frommetropolitans that distract its brilliant as a best choice for living.In such cases, the governors in Deerhaven must make out their ownsolution and strategies to make their estate more expensive and value valuable more, instead of simply copying the experience from another town.

At last but not the least, thearguer cites the action taken by seven years ago, which is a long timeto have a great many changes and which cannot be so authoritative atpresent. There is no exact information about the reaction of price whenthis restriction first came out, which might be entirely unpopular.What’s more, the arguer mentions nothing about the present situation inBrookville, where those arrangement and painting colors havedisappeared for a long time. Consequently the arguer’s assumption isunreasonable and lacks of sufficient evidence.

To sum up, the arguer comes out reaches/leads/comes to thefinal conclusion of have having the similar restriction in Deerhaven tooquickly and simply, which is unconvincing as it stands. To bettersupport this suggestion, the arguer must provide much more supportiveevidence to demonstrate that having such restrictions thus helpenhancing values of properties in Brookville, as well as in Deerhaven.Moreover, the arguer should also take into account of other factorsthat may result in the price of estate besides this restriction.

总体感觉：
错误找得很好，而且论证有力
语言词汇整体感觉还好，但是有一些错误。我已经在文中指出了