argument2 [0806G-desperado小组]第二次作业by 绿松石

绿松石UID: 2427549

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."

[outline]:采用递进的论述方法           
              1.规定不一定得到实施           
                  2.（忽略他因）即使规定得到了实施，地产升值也不一定是由于规定的颁布           
                  3.（错误类比+外推）即使地产升值与规定颁布有关，Brookville得情况不代表Deerhaven的情况，七年前的情况不代表现在的情况

In this letter, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres recommends that the homeowners should adopt certain restrictions on landscaping and housepainting to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To bolster this recommendation the committee provides the evidence that since homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting seven years ago, average property values there have tripled. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the committee's recommendation.

The argument rests on the threshold assumption that Brookville homeowners indeed carried out the restrictions in the first place. Yet, the letter fails to substantiate this critical assumption. Perhaps after the restrictions have been published the homeowners still decorate their community's yards and paint exteriors of homes in their usual way. If this is the case, then it is entirely possible that it is the specific appetite of Brookville homeowners for color and arrangement that results in the rise of the property values not the restrictions. Thus, lacking more evidence about how the homeowners implemented the restrictions, it is difficult to assess the merit of the committee's recommendation.

Even if the Brookville homeowners implemented these restrictions in the fist place,the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that this course of action was responsible for the increase in Brookville property values. However, the committee overlooks other possible causes for the increase. Perhaps there are several powerful factories near Brookville community and the demand for housing in that area has increased due to an influx of major employers. Or perhaps the average price of houses in Brookville is relative cheap. Without considering and eliminating these and other possible alternative explanations for the rise of property values, the committee cannot convincingly conclude based on the adoption of certain restrictions for landscaping and painting.

Even assuming that the Brookville's rising property values are attributable to the implementation of these restrictions, the committee still conclude too hastily that in Deerhaven Acres the same restrictions will necessarily result in the same rise in property values, while ignoring the differences between these two areas. For instance, potential Deerhaven homebuyers might be less interested in a home's exterior appearance than Brookville homebuyers. This making the analogy highly suspected. Moreover, in my observation, consumers often act unpredictably and irrationally, and therefore any prediction about consumer preferences is dubious at best. Beside, it is entirely possible that since seven years has passed by, the restrictions of painting and landscaping are out of date. If so, then in all likelihood, the adoption of certain restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will not necessarily lead to increase of property values.

In conclusion, the committee fails to substantiate his threshold claim that the homeowners in Brookville implemented the restrictions initially, and overlooks some other reasons for the rise of property values. At last, the committee makes a false analogy that people in different areas and in different times have the same reactions. To strengthen the recommendation the committee would have to demonstrate that the constrictions is responsible for the increase of property values. In addition,he would have to provide more information with regard to the potential Deerhaven homebuyers' preference at the time. Therefore, if the statement had included the given factors mentioned above, the recommendation would have become more thorough and logically acceptable.

[ 本帖最后由 绿松石 于 2007-12-9 14:10 编辑 ]

PursueDreamUID: 2426799

In this letter, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres recommends that the homeowners should adopt certain restrictions on landscaping and housepainting to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To bolster this recommendation the committee provides the evidence that since homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting seven years ago, average property values there have tripled. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the committee's recommendation.

The argument rests on the threshold assumption that Brookville homeowners indeed carried out the restrictions in the first place. Yet, the letter fails to substantiate this critical assumption. Perhaps after the restrictions have been published the homeowners still decorate their community's yards and paint exteriors of homes in their usual way. If this is the case, then it is entirely possible that it is the specific appetite of Brookville homeowners for color and arrangement that results in the rise of the property values not the restrictions. Thus, lacking more evidence about how(whether?) the homeowners implemented the restrictions, it is difficult to assess the merit of the committee's recommendation.

Even if the Brookville homeowners implemented these restrictions in the fist place,the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that this course of action was responsible for the increase in Brookville property values. However, the committee overlooks other possible causes for the increase. Perhaps there are several powerful factories near Brookville community and the demand for housing in that area has increased due to an influx of major employers. Or perhaps the average price of houses in Brookville is relative cheap. Without considering and eliminating these and other possible alternative explanations for the rise of property values, the committee cannot convincingly conclude based on the adoption of certain restrictions for landscaping and painting.

Even assuming that the Brookville's rising property values are attributable to the implementation of these restrictions, the committee still conclude too hastily that in Deerhaven Acres the same restrictions will necessarily result in the same rise in property values, while ignoring the differences between these two areas. For instance, potential Deerhaven homebuyers might be less interested in a home's exterior appearance than Brookville homebuyers. This making the analogy highly suspected. Moreover, in my observation, consumers often act unpredictably and irrationally, and therefore any prediction about consumer preferences is dubious at best. Beside, it is entirely possible that since seven years has passed by, the restrictions of painting and landscaping are out of date. If so, then in all likelihood, the adoption of certain restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will not necessarily lead to increase of property values.

In conclusion, the committee fails to substantiate his threshold claim that the homeowners in Brookville implemented the restrictions initially, and overlooks some other reasons for the rise of property values. At last, the committee makes a false analogy that people in different areas and in different times have the same reactions. To strengthen the recommendation the committee would have to demonstrate that the constrictions is responsible for the increase of property values. In addition,he would have to provide more information with regard to the potential Deerhaven homebuyers' preference at the time. Therefore, if the statement had included the given factors mentioned above, the recommendation would have become more thorough and logically acceptable.

不知道说什么！！！

hdofrucUID: 2434623

[outline]:采用递进的论述方法           
              1.规定不一定得到实施           
                  2.（忽略他因）即使规定得到了实施，地产升值也不一定是由于规定的颁布           
                  3.（错误类比+外推）即使地产升值与规定颁布有关，Brookville得情况不代表Deerhaven的情况，七年前的情况不代表现在的情况
（这个论述方法比较顺，我写这篇的时候太晕了，我自己都觉得理不清...）

In this letter, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres recommends that the homeowners should adopt certain restrictions on landscaping and housepainting to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To bolster this recommendation the committee provides the evidence that since homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting seven years ago, average property values there have tripled. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the committee's recommendation.（第一段感觉还是有点多... 我记得北美范文里建议不要过多复述原题观点）

The argument rests on the threshold assumption that Brookville homeowners indeed carried out the restrictions in the first place. Yet, the letter fails to substantiate this critical assumption. Perhaps after the restrictions have been published the homeowners still decorate their community's yards and paint exteriors of homes in their usual way. If this is the case, then it is entirely possible that it is the specific appetite of Brookville homeowners for color and arrangement that results in the rise of the property values not the restrictions. Thus, lacking more evidence about how the homeowners implemented the restrictions, it is difficult to assess the merit of the committee's recommendation.（规定不一定得到实施，这样一个论证看起来有点过于严苛，我的建议是不应该放在第一段，而且你说的这些可能与时间尺度上的变化有所重叠）

Even if the Brookville homeowners implemented these restrictions in the fist place,the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that this course of action was responsible for the increase in Brookville property values. However, the committee overlooks other possible causes for the increase. Perhaps there are several powerful factories near Brookville community and the demand for housing in that area has increased due to an influx of major employers.（这个例子不太好，中国的情况才是厂区与居住区不分或者接近，人家老美人人有车与其在厂区附近遭受可能的污染，还不如开车去远点的地方住） Or perhaps the average price of houses in Brookville is relative cheap. Without considering and eliminating these and other possible alternative explanations for the rise of property values, the committee cannot convincingly conclude based on the adoption of certain restrictions for landscaping and painting.（房价起点的例子挺好，可以扩充下，比如这是地产公司的策略，先低价吸引然后涨价）

Even assuming that the Brookville's rising property values are attributable to the implementation of these restrictions, the committee still conclude too hastily that in Deerhaven Acres the same restrictions will necessarily result in the same rise in property values, while ignoring the differences between these two areas. For instance, potential Deerhaven homebuyers might be less interested in a home's exterior appearance than Brookville homebuyers. This making the analogy highly suspected. Moreover, in my observation, consumers often act unpredictably and irrationally, and therefore any prediction about consumer preferences is dubious at best. Beside, it is entirely possible that since seven years has passed by, the restrictions of painting and landscaping are out of date. If so, then in all likelihood, the adoption of certain restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will not necessarily lead to increase of property values.

In conclusion, the committee fails to substantiate his threshold claim that the homeowners in Brookville implemented the restrictions initially, and overlooks some other reasons for the rise of property values. At last, the committee makes a false analogy that people in different areas and in different times have the same reactions. To strengthen the recommendation the committee would have to demonstrate that the constrictions is responsible for the increase of property values. In addition,he would have to provide more information with regard to the potential Deerhaven homebuyers' preference at the time. Therefore, if the statement had included the given factors mentioned above, the recommendation would have become more thorough and logically acceptable.

wangyu0920UID: 199396

[outline]:采用递进的论述方法           
              1.规定不一定得到实施           
                  2.（忽略他因）即使规定得到了实施，地产升值也不一定是由于规定的颁布           
                  3.（错误类比+外推）即使地产升值与规定颁布有关，Brookville得情况不代表Deerhaven的情况，七年前的情况不代表现在的情况

In this letter, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres recommends that the homeowners should adopt certain restrictions on landscaping and housepainting to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To bolster this recommendation the committee provides the evidence that since homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting seven years ago, average property values there have tripled. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the committee's recommendation.

The argument rests on the threshold assumption that Brookville homeowners indeed carried out the restrictions in the first place. Yet, the letter fails to substantiate this critical assumption. Perhaps after the restrictions have been published the homeowners still decorate their community's yards and paint exteriors of homes in their usual way. If this is the case, then it is entirely possible that it is the specific appetite of Brookville homeowners for color and arrangement that results in the rise of the property values not the restrictions. Thus, lacking more evidence about how the homeowners implemented the restrictions, it is difficult to assess the merit of the committee's recommendation.

Even if the Brookville homeowners implemented these restrictions in the fist place,the author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that this course of action was responsible for the increase in Brookville property values. However, the committee overlooks other possible causes for the increase. Perhaps there are several powerful factories near Brookville community and the demand for housing in that area has increased due to an influx of major employers. Or perhaps the average price of houses in Brookville is relative cheap. Without considering and eliminating these and other possible alternative explanations for the rise of property values, the committee cannot convincingly conclude based on the adoption of certain restrictions for landscaping and painting.

Even assuming that the Brookville's rising property values are attributable to the implementation of these restrictions, the committee still conclude too hastily that in Deerhaven Acres the same restrictions will necessarily result in the same rise in property values, while ignoring the differences between these two areas. For instance, potential Deerhaven homebuyers might be less interested in a home's exterior appearance than Brookville homebuyers. This making the analogy highly suspected. Moreover, in my observation, consumers often act unpredictably and irrationally, and therefore any prediction about consumer preferences is dubious at best. Beside, it is entirely possible that since seven years has passed by, the restrictions of painting and landscaping are out of date. If so, then in all likelihood, the adoption of certain restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will not necessarily lead to increase of property values.

In conclusion, the committee fails to substantiate his threshold claim that the homeowners in Brookville implemented the restrictions initially, and overlooks some other reasons for the rise of property values. At last, the committee makes a false analogy that people in different areas and in different times have the same reactions. To strengthen the recommendation the committee would have to demonstrate that the constrictions is responsible for the increase of property values. In addition,he would have to provide more information with regard to the potential Deerhaven homebuyers' preference at the time. Therefore, if the statement had included the given factors mentioned above, the recommendation would have become more thorough and logically acceptable.

这篇太好了，我找不到什么能修改的地方……

[ 本帖最后由 wangyu0920 于 2007-12-14 23:25 编辑 ]