Argument2

xsr6064UID：2312664

Argument 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."

Word : 415             　　Time :５０ｍｉｎ


提纲：

Para 1 . “废话”
Para 2 . 指出调查数据过时，人们的喜好可能会改变，而且过去有效的方法现在不一定有效
Para 3 . 指出导致Brookville资产增值的因素很多，不一定就是those restrictions，需要排除
Para 4 . 指出两个社区不一定有相似之处
Para 5 . 结论

In this letter of the committee of homeowners, the author claim that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, all the homeowners should adopt their own set of restrictions landscaping and housepainting. For supporting his argument he give a example that the nearby Brookville tripled their property values after restricting the landscape of community’s yards and colors of homes’ exteriors. However, I suspect that the author give the reliable information to draw the conclusion.

First, what the author cites in the passage may be outdated information which happened seven years ago. People in the modern society usually advocate the individuality, while this kind of restrictions may not be accepted by public. Moreover, even this kind of restrictions could really benefit people for certain reasons in that time, it is still possible that the condition has changed in the seven-year time, so the old manners can not directly use today without any investigation. Therefore, unless the author can prove that the condition today is absolutely the same as that of seven years ago, I can not believe his conclusion.

Secondly, the author only say that Brookville increased its property after adopting those restrictions, but fail to explain how the restrictions influence the raise. Without a direct correlation between property raising and the restrictions, we can suspect that there are other factors to cause the result. For example, it is possible that Brookville’s industry thrived after adopting the restrictions, or the community developed the tourism depending on its beautiful scenery, even the local people found a big oil field in their community. In short, I can not be convinced that Deerhaven can benefit from those restrictions without more detail evidences.

Thirdly, even the true reason of Brookville’s property raising is those restrictions, it does not means that the measure can be effective in Deerhaven. The author does not provide us the comparison between the two communities. If Deerhaven does not have any similarity with Brookville, we can not risk adopting the same restrictions. It is quite possible that those landscape and house color’s restrictions would look terrible in Deerhaven while are suitable in Brookville, because of their different natural and social environment.

In conclusion, the author do not give us adequate evidence to support his conclusion. If he want to persuade all the homeowners to adopt those restrictions, he need provide more information about the factors of property raise and the comparison between two community, and a investigation of people’s appetite today is also helpful.

SavileRowUID：2284947

In this letter of the committee of homeowners, the author claim that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, all the homeowners should adopt their own set of restrictions landscaping and housepainting. For supporting his argument he give a example that the nearby Brookville tripled their property values after restricting the landscape of community’s yards and colors of homes’ exteriors. However, I suspect that the author give the reliable information to draw the conclusion.

First(firstly), what the author cites in the passage may be outdated information which happened seven years ago. People in the modern society usually advocate the individuality, while this kind of restrictions may not be accepted by public.(七年前也算是modern吧，我觉得有些牵强了) Moreover, even this kind of restrictions could really benefit people for certain reasons in that time(这个让步没有意义，因为前一句的观点讲的是个性问题，和你的让步没关系), it is still possible that the condition has changed in the seven-year time, so the old manners can not directly use today without any investigation. (什么变了？要写一个具体原因)Therefore, unless the author can prove that the condition today is absolutely the same as that of seven years ago, I can not believe his conclusion.
啊，天啊，看了你的我才想起来我居然忘了一个主要的错。

Secondly, the author only say(says) that Brookville increased its property after adopting those restrictions, but fail(fails) to explain how the restrictions influence the raise. Without a direct correlation between property raising（这个短语是不是应该为values’ rising?） and the restrictions, we can suspect that there are other factors to cause the result. For example, it is possible that Brookville’s industry thrived after adopting the restrictions, or the community developed the tourism depending on its beautiful scenery, even the local people found a big oil field in their community（这个细节很好，不过，找到油田是不是有点扯了？哈哈）. In short, I can not be convinced that Deerhaven can benefit from those restrictions without more detail evidences.

Thirdly, even the true reason of(for?) Brookville’s property raising(这个短语的问题同上，raise是及物动词) is those restrictions, it does not means（mean） that the measure can be effective in Deerhaven. The author does not provide(provide sth for sb.或者provide sb. with sth.) us the comparison between the two communities. If Deerhaven does not have any similarity with Brookville, we can not risk adopting the same restrictions. It is quite possible that those landscape and house color’s restrictions would look terrible in Deerhaven while are suitable in Brookville, because of their different natural and social environment. (这个理由不够恰当，作者只是建议DA也限制颜色和景观，没有建议用和B一样的配色)
这一段写false analogy段落结构有问题，建议看看北美范文写错误片段时候的对应例子。

In conclusion, the author do(does) not give us adequate evidence to support his conclusion. If he want(wants) to persuade all the homeowners to adopt those restrictions, he need(needs) provide more information about the factors of property raise and the comparison between two community, and a investigation of people’s appetite today is also helpful.

总体来说，写得很清晰流畅。
我觉得还漏了一点，可以写光是采取限制本身是否足够使产值提高。指出作者没考虑其他因素。个人意见
值得提高的地方，false analogyn那段，好像是这几篇练习里第一次出现这个错误，应该看看范文是怎么写的。虽然古板，但至少结构完整。
第二段的细节没写清楚
还有，第三人称单数漏了好多……这种属于低级错误，判分很吃亏的

[ 本帖最后由 SavileRow 于 2007-8-3 17:42 编辑 ]

xsr6064UID：2312664

谢谢，回去改！