argument2 【勇往直前小组】第四春

nornsUID：2325187

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: 250       TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-24 0:47:09

   Viewing from the evidence the author cited and the process of deduction, the suggestion that we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting is not convincible, as we discuss below.

Firstly, the most fatal error lying in the deduction is, the author mislead the concept of ‘average property value’ and ‘property value’. All the information the author gives is based on ‘average property value’, so，even if we hold for sure the evidence provided and the assumption that the restrictions in Deerhaven also works well，we can not conclude that its property will increase greatly just as its average value does. Maybe the raise in average property is largely because the decrease of population, and therefore the property value doesn’t see much enhancement.

What’s more，given that the restriction of housepainting and landscaping works well in Brookville； we are still not sure that it would also raise the average values in Deerhaven Acres. No information on the similarities of two districts has been provided. So there might be great differences between the two areas which will make the restrictions taking effect in Broolville won’t work here. For example, If many houses in Deerhaven Acres of are more than 200 years, which are of high cultural and historical value, the restrictions like that might destroy the original style of them, and directly decrease the property value. What’s more, if the residents in Deerhaven are relatively more conservative and dislike the new style of the housepaintings in the restrictions of their housepainting and landscaping, the sales of the house might drop, and then may result in the decrease of the property value.

  Thirdly, the evidence is also insufficient for supporting the conclusion that it would help raise the average property value in Brookville. There might be other causes lead to the increase in property value. Maybe due to the increasing economy of the district, it offers more jobs and higher salary than seven years ago, and attracting more people for work, houses in high demand, so the average property raises-just like what happened in Silicon Valley. Maybe in the seven years time, the implementation of a project turned more wasted land into houses, which add up to the increase of property value. Therefore, before knowing details that showing the cause-effect relationship, we cannot confirm that it’s such restrictions that lead to the triple of the price.

To sum up, if we analysis how the author get the conclusion from his assumption, how the author use the evidence to support his assumption, we will find the information is still not enough, and therefore, the author should provide more detailed information to make the suggestion convincible.

[ 本帖最后由 norns 于 2007-7-24 17:18 编辑 ]

woodmanUID：161906

Viewingfrom the evidence the author cited and the process of deduction, the suggestionthat we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping andhousepainting is not convincible, as we discuss below.

Firstly, the most fatal error lying in the deductionis, the author mislead the concept of ‘average property value’ and ‘propertyvalue’（感觉这个题最大的问题应该是错误的类比吧，东施效颦，D模仿B的做法。题目意思:D地统一外观就能提高地价，因为B这么做成功了）. All the information the author gives is based on ‘average propertyvalue’, so，even if wehold for sure the evidence provided and the assumption that the restrictions inDeerhaven also works well，we can not conclude that its property will increase greatly just asits average value does. Maybe the raise in average property is largely becausethe decrease of population, and therefore the property value doesn’t see muchenhancement.

What’s more，given thatthe restriction of housepainting and landscaping works well in Brookville；we are still not sure that it wouldalso raise the average values in Deerhaven Acres. No information on thesimilarities of two districts has been provided. So there might be greatdifferences between the two areas which will make the restrictions takingeffect in Broolville won’t work here. For example, If many houses in DeerhavenAcres of are more than 200 years, which are of high cultural and historicalvalue, the restrictions like that might destroy the original style of them, anddirectly decrease the property value. What’s more, if the residents inDeerhaven are relatively more conservative and dislike the new style of thehousepaintings in the restrictions of their housepainting and landscaping, thesales of the house might drop, and then may result in the decrease of theproperty value.

Thirdly, the evidence is also insufficient for supporting the conclusion thatit would help raise the average property value in Brookville. There might beother causes lead to the increase in property value. Maybe due to theincreasing economy of the district, it offers more jobs and higher salary thanseven years ago, and attracting more people for work, houses in high demand, sothe average property raises-just like what happened in Silicon Valley. Maybe in the seven years time, the implementation of aproject turned more wasted land into houses, which add up to the increase ofproperty value. Therefore, before knowing details that showing the cause-effectrelationship, we cannot confirm that it’s such restrictions that lead to thetriple of the price.这一段调到前面作为第三段，逻辑结构会更清晰
To sum up, if we analysis how the author get the conclusion from hisassumption, how the author use the evidence to support his assumption, we willfind the information is still not enough, and therefore, the author shouldprovide more detailed information to make the suggestion convincible.

其他什么问题倒是没有了。