Argument2[desperado]第二次作业 by Grace

grace040802UID: 2348819

Argument2
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: 523                    DATE: 2007-12-9 16:07:22

Outline:
1.草率地认为Brookille community 房屋价格上涨是因为该社区的庭院布置与房屋涂色所致.可能另有他因,如BC 周围生活环境和生态环境的改善,或者政府加大了对该社区开发力度,或者是近年来通货膨胀房屋价格普遍上涨.
2.错误类推.尽管BC是因为那一系列的措施是房屋价格上涨,但是the arguer 未指明何种具体规定且BC 和DA是不同地区,对于BC 适用的做法对于DA不适用.DA作决定之前应该综合考虑各种因素.
3.尽管DA弄清BC是如何制定规则,DA也相应的制定了自己的规定,并不意味着DA的地产会象BC那样上涨,有可能DA的房价已经很高,上涨空间很小.
4.总结.
The arguer recommends that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting so as to raise property values, based on the reason that the average property value have tripled in Brookville,as a result of their serious restrictions on landscaping the connunity's yards and painting the exteriors of homes.this seems logical,but it's not easy for DA to achieve that goal in this way,just simply compares to Brookille community.The conclusion reached in this letter is invalid.

First of all,the arguer hastely generalizes that the property values' increase is only cause by the adopted restrictions on landscaping and overlooks other possibilities.Perhaps because the policies implemented by the government improve the environmental surroundings, which makes Brookille community is blossoming during recent years,obsorting many talents and economists,who develope this areas a lot.Or perhaps there exists a economic inflation,which all over the country suffers from the fast increased price.Without ruling out these alternatives,it is impossible to conclude that BC's tripled property values are caused by their regulations.

In the second place,even if the increase of B's property values is due to their restrictions,it doesnot mean this kind of measures is also useful for DA,Because the arguer fails to points out the internal contents of B's restrictions and how B conveys these to the public.Moreover,there are many differences between DA and B,It is possible that the residents in DA are poorer than those in B.They livea low level life,Perhaps some of are facing the dilemma of hungry.It is impossible for them to consider inproving the living environment without being out of hungry.Or perhaps the causes obstacled the increase of DA's property values are not its own unreasonable landscaped community and the exteral colors of their homes,but the other reasons,such as the locality,the factories around DA and the policies of local government.Without taking into these possibilities,it is harmful for DA to hastly adopt the same method in order to raise the property values.

Last but not least,the arguer fails to assumpt that the property values will be raised when DA can widely apply restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.On one hand, perhaps the present values are so high that the increasing space is too limited.These measures are just additional furnishing.On the other hand, perhaps the current landscaping and housepainting satisfy the citizens if they are changed to the form that they connot be content with,it is possible that the property values will suffer decreasing,but not increasing.In a word, there is no information to indicates the increase after taking the restrictions.Thes argument id unconvincing,unless the arguer can provide evidengce that the real states markets are perspective on landscaping and housepainting.

In conlusion, the argument,which it seems logical st first,has several flaws as disscused above.To strenghen the argument the arguer should offer the evidence that the true reason why B's property values are tripled raised,the similarity between DA and B.To better accert the argument,the arguer had better provide some information about the real state markets in DA.

[ 本帖最后由 grace040802 于 2007-12-10 12:58 编辑 ]

anndyUID: 2436020

The arguer recommands that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt a set of restriction on langscaping and housepainting so as to raise property values, based on the reason that the average property value have tripled in Brookville,as a result of their serious restrictions on landscaping the connunity's yards and painting the exteriors of homes.this seems logical,but it's not easy for DA to achieve that goal in this way,just simply compares to Brookille community.The conclusion reached in this letter is invalid（用invalid是否合适，换成unpersuasive是否更好？）.

First of all,the arguer hastly generalizes that the property values' increase is only cause by the adopted restrictions on landscaping and overlooks （not？）other possibilities.Perhaps because the policies impemented by the government improve the environmental surroundings, which makes Brookille community is blossoming during recent years,obsorting many talents and economists,who develope this areas a lot.Or perhaps there exists a economic inflation,which all over the country suufers from the fast increased price.Without ruling out these alternatives,it is impossible to conclude that BC's tripled property values are caused by their regulations.

In the second place,even if the increase of B's property values is due to their restrictions,it doesnot mean this kind of measures is also useful for DA,Because the arguer fails to points out the internal contents of B's restrictions and how B conveys these to the public.Moreover,there are many differences between DA and B,It is possible that the residents in DA are poored than those in B.They livea low level life,Perhaps some of are facing the dilemma of hungry.It is impossible for them to consider inproving the living environment without being out of hungry.Or perhaps the causes obstacled the increase of DA's property values are not its own unreasonable landscaped community and the exteral colors of their homes,but the other reasons,such as the locality,the factories around DA and the policies of local government.Without taking into these possibilities,it is harmful for DA to hastly adopt the same method in order to raise the property values.

Last but not least,the arguer fails to assumpt that the property values will be raised when DA can widely apply restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.On one hand, perhaps the present values are so high that the increasing space is too limited.These measures are just additional furnishing.On the other hand, perhaps the current landscaping and housepainting satisfy the citizens if they are changed to the form that they connot be content with,it is possible that the property values will sufer decreasing,but not increasing.In a word, there is no information to indicates the increase after taking the restrictions.Thes argument id unconvincing,unless the arguer can provide evidengce that the real states markets are perspective on landscaping and housepainting.

In conlusion, the argument,which it seems logical st first,has several flaws as disscused above.To strenghen the argument the arguer should offer the evidence that the true reason why B's property values are tripled raised,the similarity between DA and B.To better accert the argument,the arguer had better provide some information about the real state markets in DA.

看了范文，好像有一个错误我们都没有找到。就是Brookville的restrictions又没有真正实现。
感觉好像原文意思就是说实现了，看来意思没有理解透侧。

流淌的月光UID: 2414493

The arguer recommands that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt a set of restriction on langscaping and housepainting so as to raise property values, based on the reason that the average property values have tripled in Brookville,as a result of their serious restrictions on landscaping the connunity's yards and painting the exteriors of homes.this seems logical,but it's not easy for DA to achieve that goal in this way,just simply compares to Brookille community.The conclusion reached in this letter is invalid.

First of all,the arguer hastly generalizes that the property values' increase is only cause by the adopted restrictions on landscaping and overlooks other possibilities.Perhaps because the policies impemented by the government improve the environmental surroundings, which makes Brookille community is blossoming during recent years,obsorting many talents and economists,who develope this areas a lot.Or perhaps there exists a economic inflation,which all over the country suufers from the fast increased price.Without ruling out these alternatives,it is impossible to conclude that BC's tripled property values are caused by their regulations.

In the second place,even if the increase of B's property values is due to their restrictions,it doesnot mean this kind of measures is also useful for DA,Because the arguer fails to points out the internal contents of B's restrictions and how B conveys these to the public.Moreover,there are many differences between DA and B,It is possible that the residents in DA are poored than those in B.They livea low level life,Perhaps some of are facing the dilemma of hungry.It is impossible for them to consider inproving the living environment without being out of hungry.Or perhaps the causes obstacled the increase of DA's property values are not its own unreasonable landscaped community and the exteral colors of their homes,but the other reasons,such as the locality,the factories around DA and the policies of local government.Without taking into these possibilities,it is harmful for DA to hastly adopt the same method in order to raise the property values.

Last but not least,the arguer fails to assumpt that the property values will be raised when DA can widely apply restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.On one hand, perhaps the present values are so high that the increasing space is too limited.These measures are just additional furnishing.On the other hand, perhaps the current landscaping and housepainting satisfy the citizens if they are changed to the form that they connot be content with,it is possible that the property values will sufer decreasing,but not increasing.In a word, there is no information to indicates the increase after taking the restrictions.Thes argument id unconvincing,unless the arguer can provide evidengce that the real states markets are perspective on landscaping and housepainting.

In conlusion, the argument,which it seems logical st first,has several flaws as disscused above.To strenghen the argument the arguer should offer the evidence that the true reason why B's property values are tripled raised,the similarity between DA and B.To better accert the argument,the arguer had better provide some information about the real state markets in DA.

到word里查错误了吗  呵呵