Argument2 本人第一次写argu没有限时，写得不好希望大家多指教~第二版放在五楼了：）

leafdropsUID??2251505

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."


The committee argues that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting for the purpose of enhancing property values in this area. To support this argument, the committee point out that the average property values in nearby Brookville community have tripled since its homeowners adopted a set of restrictions seven years ago. Although it seems to be well reasoned at first glance, yet it suffers from several critical fallacies.

A threshold problem with the committee's contention is its unwarranted assumption that the restrictions set in the Brookville community was carried out thoroughly. It is quite possible that quite a few homeowners refused to obey the restrictions. Without showing that all, at least most, homeowners in Brookville community having implemented the restrictions, we cannot reach the conclusion that it were the restrictions that attributed to their property values' rising.

What is more, even assuming that the restrictions were well implemented, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the effect of the restrictions and the rising of property values. It may be other various factors, such as the location, transportation or the environment of the community, that are responsible for the thriving property. It is also entirely possible that a big supermarket or shopping mall just was built nearby, or the schools near the community improved their education quality greatly which contribute to the higher price. Therefore, without reevaluating and ruling out all these possibilities, the committee can hardly convince us the restricted landscaping and housepainting is the cause of the tripled house price in Brookville.

Last but not the least, the argument is based on a false analogy. The committee simply considers that the methods used by Brookville is also effectual in the situation of Deerhaven Acres without considering the difference of Deerhaven Acres and Brookville, which may possibly lead to the different result of the same action. As we know there are many ingredients affecting the house price. Maybe Brookville is a golden location with everything around perfect while the condition of Deerhaven Acres is terrible for living. So the fabulous landscaping and housepainting catalyze the boosting house price of Brookville but compensate little for Deerhaven Acres’ disadvantages, resulting in that their house price cannot rise significantly. So the experience of Brookville could not be grafted in Deerhaven Acres without analyzing the difference of the two communities.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument cannot well support it. To make the argument more cogent, the arguer should further investigate the condition of Brookville. Furthermore, we need extra evidence that the two communities are comparable.

[ 本帖最后由 leafdrops 于 2007-8-6 22:56 编辑 ]

njuzhshaoUID??2258118

这个文章我当时说逻辑好是有研究的，不是空口说的，所以还是分析给你看看。
我把逻辑画给你看。

  Brookville restrictions --------> Brookville value rise
=〉   our restrctions -----------------> our value rise

这个就是整个的作者的证明逻辑。

把它拆成三段论是这样的，就是：

Brookville 实施了 restrction (fact), 且 所有的此类 restriction 都对 value 有这种作用(assumption)
==〉 Brookville的restriction 对 value 有作用。

Brookville的restriction 对 value 有作用(proved),且 没有其他的因素对value起这么大作用(assumption)
==>  restrction是唯一的，至少是最主要的因素。

restriction 是 Brookville 的 value rise的主要原因(proved), 且 Brookville和我们情况相同(assumption)
==〉 restriction对我们的value也有rise的作用。

这就是作者的三段论。而三段论都有问题,就是三个assumptions都不成立，这就是攻击的逻辑。
而文章恰好是按照这个逻辑展开的。所以很精彩，很有力度。

这里有个问题，就是那个color 和 landscape 是干什么的？
其实这个小例子是故意留给你的攻击点。如果作者说，restriction就是一系列有效改善小区面貌的举措，你就没有对第一个点攻击的材料了。清楚了？

bbgUID??2373668

"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."


The committee argues that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting for the purpose of enhancing property values in this area. To support this argument, the committee point out that the average property values in nearby Brookville community have tripled since its homeowners adopted a set of restrictions seven years ago. Although it seems to be well reasoned at first glance, yet it suffers from several critical fallacies.

A threshold problem with the committee's contention is its unwarranted assumption that the restrictions set in the Brookville community was carried out thoroughly. It is quite possible that quite a few homeowners refused to obey the restrictions. Without showing that all, at least most, homeowners in Brookville community having implemented the restrictions, we cannot reach the conclusion that it were the restrictions that attributed to their property values' rising.（刷房子，限花园这个政策好么，别人说不定都怨声载道了，难道我们还要效仿；我们市民愿意么，会不会就此每人再来这里了）

What is more, even assuming that the restrictions were well implemented, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the effect of the restrictions and the rising of property values. It may be other various factors, such as the location, transportation or the environment of the community, that are responsible for the thriving property. It is also entirely possible that a big supermarket or shopping mall just was built nearby, or the schools near the community improved their education quality greatly which contribute to the higher price. Therefore, without reevaluating and ruling out all these possibilities, the committee can hardly convince us the restricted landscaping and housepainting is the cause of the tripled house price in Brookville.（说不定不做那些规定，房子要涨6-7倍）

Last but not the least, the argument is based on a false analogy. The committee simply considers that the methods used by Brookville is also effectual in the situation of Deerhaven Acres without considering the difference of Deerhaven Acres and Brookville, which may possibly lead to the different result of the same action. As we know there are many ingredients affecting the house price. Maybe Brookville is a golden location with everything around perfect while the condition of Deerhaven Acres is terrible for living. So the fabulous landscaping and housepainting catalyze the boosting house price of Brookville but compensate little for Deerhaven Acres’ disadvantages, resulting in that their house price cannot rise significantly. So the experience of Brookville could not be grafted in Deerhaven Acres without analyzing the difference of the two communities.（涨地价有很多方法，说不定其他地方做得更好；还有他们房价有我们高么，需要学习么；我们房价会不会太高了，很多人之想让它降下来）

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument cannot well support it. To make the argument more cogent, the arguer should further investigate the condition of Brookville. Furthermore, we need extra evidence that the two communities are comparable.

leafdropsUID??2251505

楼上第一条第二条的评论会不会太极端了？

leafdropsUID??2251505

按照njuzhshao的指点，本人修改了此篇习作，放上来再供大家猛排：）
为了大家阅读方便，把题目也再贴了一遍

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."


The committee argues that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting for the purpose of enhancing property values in this area. To support this argument, the committee point out that the average property values in nearby Brookville community have tripled since its homeowners adopted a set of restrictions seven years ago. Although it seems to be well reasoned at first glance, yet it suffers from several critical fallacies.

A threshold problem with the committee's contention is an unwarranted assumption that the restrictions set in the Brookville community was carried out thoroughly. It is quite possible that the type of landscaping or the color of housepainting restricted was not liked by many homeowners. Also some homeowners may consider it unworthy to paint their house. Thus even if the restrictions were adopted, maybe it failed to call on all the residents there to participate in. Without showing the outcome of the restrictions in Brookville, we cannot reach the conclusion that it were the restrictions that attributed to their property values' rising.

What is more, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the effect of the restrictions and the rising of property values. It could be other factors, such as the location, transportation or the environment of the community, that are responsible for the thriving property. For instance, maybe a new resort centre was built here and attracted lots of tourists coming here which may result in the house prices going up. It is also possible that the average house prices of the nation tripled during the seven years, making the ascending property values in Brookville less related with the restrictions. Therefore, without reevaluating and ruling out all these possibilities, the committee can hardly convince us the restricted landscaping and housepainting is the cause of the tripled house price in Brookville.

Last but not least, the argument is based on a false analogy. The committee simply considers that the methods used by Brookville is also effectual in the situation of Deerhaven Acres without considering the difference of Deerhaven Acres and Brookville, which may possibly lead to the different results of the same action. As I have said, there are many ingredients affecting the house price. Maybe the location of Brookville is wonderful while that of Deerhaven Acres is terrible for living. So the fabulous landscaping and housepainting catalyzed the boosting house price of Brookville but could compensate little for Deerhaven Acres’disadvantages. What is more, owing to it that lots could change in seven years, the experience of Brookville seven years ago is not suitable to be grafted in Deerhaven Acres directly.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument cannot well support it. To make the argument more cogent, the arguer should further investigate the condition of Brookville. Furthermore, we need extra evidence that the two communities are comparable.

njuzhshaoUID??2258118

如此的写法觉得论证充分了许多,不错,要赞的。

MaggeiUID??2348773

分析很有道理啊,,,收益了...

zhangyibinUID??2301688

同学们的见解都太过形式化了，和“北美”的论调一样。就我看来，上文中的第一、第二点的反驳显然就是一样的,一个是说限制没作用,一个是说限制作用很小，有必要分开写吗？我觉得这个Argument的问题还在于，业主委员会过分专注于房价的上涨了。有没有想过业主委员会的作用是什么？我觉得他们的任务应该是改善小区的整体质量吧！试问房价上涨对于那些不卖房的业主有意义吗？再者说，做了那么多的工作只是为了房价的上涨，是不是与其初衷背道而驰了呢？所以，总的来说，业主委员会将实施景观规定归因于利于房价上涨本身就颠倒了因果关系。觉得没道理可别打我呀......

[ 本帖最后由 zhangyibin 于 2007-8-10 20:34 编辑 ]