Argument2【0806G-Sunbird小组】第二次作业

zxxx2972UID: 2367399

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 house painting."



In this argument, the author concludes that people in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting so as to raise property values. To support his conclusion, the author cites the successful restrictions of the nearby Brookville community seven years ago. However, this argument suffers from several flaws.

First of all, the author provide little evidence to establish causal relationship between Brookville’s adopting a set of restriction and Brookville’s raising of average property values. In fact, many other factors might account for the increased property value in Deerhaven Acres. Perhaps, seven years ago, more people immigrate into this community and the demand for settling down results in the increase of average property values; it is still likely that the property values raises with the increase of the investment in this community. Or perhaps the better environment with low pollution and low rate of crime drives people to settle in, thus the property values raises. Therefore, without ruling out other factors which lead to the increase of property values, the author can not convince us that the restrictions is the reason that results in the raised property values.

Secondly, even though the restrictions take effect seven years ago, the author falsely assumes that this action will still work well at present. Seven years is a long time for everything to change, in fact, it is likely that homeowners in Brookville community have tried of this unified style that they are crying for different styles of landscaping and house painting. If so, the success of the restriction in Brookville community could not give any support to the same success in the Deerhaven Acres.

Finally, the author failed to consider and neglect the differences between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville community. Differences including the use of land, the like of house painting style and its weather would lead to different results by applying the same method. For instance, people in Deerhaven Acres might entirely not care about the style of house painting and landscaping or even dislike the unified style. Given this possibility is true, the restrictions would take no effect or even lead to the decrease of property values.

In sum, the argument fails to be cogent due to its reasoning flaws. To be more persuasive, the author should provide more evidence to justify that the restriction is the reason for the increase of Brookville community and supply more information about Deerhaven Acres to support his conclusion.

lewis0409220UID: 2238498

In this argument, the author concludes that people in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting so as to raise property values. To support his conclusion, the author cites the successful restrictions of the nearby Brookville community seven years ago. However, this argument suffers from several flaws.

First of all, the author provide little evidence to establish causal relationship between Brookville’s adopting a set of restriction and Brookville’s raising of average property values. In fact, many other factors might account for the increased property value in Deerhaven Acres. Perhaps, seven years ago, more people immigrate(immigrated) into this community and the demand for settling down results(resulted) in the increase of average property values; it is still likely that the property values raises with the increase of the investment in this community. Or perhaps the better environment with low pollution and low rate of crime drives people to settle in, thus the property values raises.(第三个例子是第一个例子的分支,也是说的人口增加,不应该和第一个并列) Therefore, without ruling out other factors which lead to the increase of property values, the author can not convince us that the restrictions is the reason that results in the raised property values.

Secondly, even though the restrictions take effect seven years ago, the author falsely assumes that this action will still work well at present. Seven years is a long time for everything to change, in fact, it is likely that homeowners in Brookville community have tried of this unified style that they are crying for different styles of landscaping and house painting. If so, the success of the restriction in Brookville community could not give any support to the same success in the Deerhaven Acres.(我感觉这一段说服力相对差些)

Finally, the author failed to consider and neglect the differences between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville community. Differences including the use of land, the like(感觉like不好) of house painting style and its weather would lead to different results by applying the same method. For instance, people in Deerhaven Acres might entirely not care about the style of house painting and landscaping or even dislike the unified style. Given this possibility is true, the restrictions would take no effect or even lead to the decrease of property values.

In sum, the argument fails to be cogent due to its reasoning flaws. To be more persuasive, the author should provide more evidence to justify that the restriction is the reason for the increase of Brookville community and supply more information about Deerhaven Acres to support his conclusion.


我水平比较差,指不出其它问题了,我觉得句子,词汇,逻辑各方面都很好,向你学习.

[ 本帖最后由 lewis0409220 于 2007-11-11 11:43 编辑 ]