[AERO小组第六次作业]ARGUMENT2

saavedroUID: 2423190

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: 501          TIME: 01:07:04          DATE: 2007-12-3 下午 11:12:08
  

  In this analysis, the arguer claims that the a Deerhaven Acres's committee of homeowners should adopt their set of restrictions on landscaping and the housepainting by following with the Brookville's. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the evidence of since the brookville adopted the series of restriction law with the community's yards were landscaped and painted the colors, it was average property values have tripled in Brookville.
A major assumption underlying this argument is that the survey's result from Brookville has extracted from seven years ago. This line of reasoning is flawed in several aspects.
  The arguer cites the testimony of the Brookville's which were effective in the past would also be effective in the future rests on unfairly assuption that during the past seven years all condition upon which their effectiveness depend have remained unchanged. Perhaps,  as viriational as the circumstance, which the fact in the past would be change, such as the value of estates at local firms, or local residents might beget whimsical thinking with the painting of exteriors houses, etc. The survey's result cannot illustrates the fact that their project will keep utility in the future. Until the arguer substantiates this assumption I remain unconvinced that if property values raising in Deerhaven Acres, they must adopt these set of restriction law.
  The mere fact that Brookville's community homeowners adopted the series of restriction with the yards landscaping and exteriors houses painting has same severd to adopted in the Deerhaven Acres is scant evidence that  Deerhaven Acres will applys with this style of restriction. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on Deerhaven Acres due to geological differences between the two citys. Or perhaps, there are difference of the city's building style, architecture in the Brookville can be used this restriction of painting and landscaping, but in the Deerhaven, the situation would be opposite. In short, lacking evidence that condition on the two cities are relevantly similar, the arguer cannot convince me on the basis of Brookville's
experience that the intention course of action would be effective in the Deerhaven Acres.  
  The projection of landscaping and painting is not nessesarily indicate the average property values raisen in Brookville. It is entirely possible that other factors also leading to the fact, as popular as the travelling in nowadays merchants would invest magnificent funds for estate firms for making a big profitable feedbacking. Since the argument fails to account for this alternative explanation for the average property values have tripled in Brookville, the argument's arguer cannot make any sound recommodations to law firms based on that the landscaping and painting house.
  As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that what about reasons that  Brookville's average property values have raised and how about the situation with the property values in Brrokville through upon the restriction law firm. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might weaken the argument.  


很早以前写的了，至少是两个月前写的，应该是我第二篇ARGUMENT，一直都没来的及修改，拍文的同学辛苦了。

tonyyoreUID: 2317273

In this analysis, the arguer claims that the a Deerhaven Acres's committee of homeowners should adopt their set of restrictions on landscaping and the housepainting by following with the Brookville's. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the evidence of(that) since the brookville adopted the series of restriction law with the community's yards were landscaped and painted the colors, it was(its) average property values have tripled in Brookville.
A major assumption underlying(undermines) this argument is that the survey's result from Brookville has extracted from seven years ago. This line of reasoning is flawed in several aspects.

  The arguer cites the testimony(证词？) of the Brookville's which were effective in the past would also be effective in the future rests on unfairly(unfair) assuption that during the past seven years all condition upon which their effectiveness depend have remained unchanged. Perhaps,  as viriational(variational) as the circumstance, which the fact in the past would be change, such as the value of estates at local firms, or local residents might beget whimsical thinking with the painting of exteriors houses, etc.(句子成分不完整) The survey's result cannot illustrates the fact that their project will keep utility in the future. Until(Not until) the arguer substantiates this assumption I remain unconvinced that if property values raising in Deerhaven Acres, they must adopt these set of restriction law.

  The mere fact that Brookville's community homeowners adopted the series of restriction with the yards landscaping and exteriors houses painting has same severd to adopted in the Deerhaven Acres(没有看懂这句话的意思) is scant evidence that  Deerhaven Acres will applys with this style of restriction. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on Deerhaven Acres due to geological differences between the two citys. Or perhaps, there are difference of the city's building style, architecture in the Brookville can be used this restriction of painting and landscaping, but in the Deerhaven, the situation would be opposite. In short, lacking evidence that condition on the two cities are relevantly similar, the arguer cannot convince me on the basis of Brookville's experience that the intention course of action would be effective in the Deerhaven Acres.  

  The projection of landscaping and painting is(does) not nessesarily indicate the average property values raisen in Brookville. It is entirely possible that other factors also leading(led) to the fact, as popular as the travelling in nowadays merchants would invest magnificent funds for estate firms for making a big profitable feedbacking. Since the argument fails to account for this alternative explanation for the average property values have tripled in Brookville, the argument's arguer cannot make any sound recommodations to law firms based on that the landscaping and painting house.

  As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that what about reasons that  Brookville's average property values have raised and how about the situation with the property values in Brrokville through upon the restriction law firm. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might weaken the argument.  

以上使用红色标出的部分是有问题的，如有不合理之处，请多多谅解

可乐加冰84UID: 2221571

In this analysis, the arguer claims that the a Deerhaven Acres's committee of homeowners should adopt their set of restrictions on landscaping and the housepainting by following with the Brookville's. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the evidence of (that) since the brookville(Brookville) adopted the series of restriction law(s) with the community's yards were landscaped and painted the colors, it was average property values have tripled in Brookville(句子有问题).A major assumption underlying this argument is that the survey's result from Brookville has extracted from seven years ago. This line of reasoning is flawed in several aspects.
  The arguer cites the testimony（example） of the Brookville's which were effective in the past would also be effective in the future rests on unfairly assuption(assumption) that during the past seven years all condition upon which their effectiveness depend have remained unchanged. Perhaps,  as viriational(??) as the circumstance, which the fact in the past would be change, such as the value of estates at local firms, or local residents might beget whimsical thinking with the painting of exteriors houses, etc. The survey's result cannot illustrates(illustrate) the fact that their project will keep utility in the future. Until the arguer substantiates this assumption I remain unconvinced that if property values raising(rising) in Deerhaven Acres, they must adopt these set of restriction law(s).
  The mere fact that Brookville's community homeowners adopted the series of restriction with the yards landscaping and exteriors houses painting has same severd(effects) to adopted(adopt) in the Deerhaven Acres is scant evidence that  Deerhaven Acres will applys(apply) with this style of restriction. Perhaps the same course of action would be ineffective on Deerhaven Acres due to geological differences between the two citys(cities). Or perhaps, there are difference(s) of the city's building style, architecture(construct) in the Brookville can be used this restriction of painting and landscaping, but in the Deerhaven, the situation would be opposite. In short, lacking evidence that condition on the two cities are relevantly similar, the arguer cannot convince me on the basis of Brookville's experience that the intention(词性问题) course of action would be effective in the Deerhaven Acres.  
  The projection of landscaping and painting is not nessesarily indicate the average property values raisen（rising） in Brookville. It is entirely possible that other factors also leading to the fact, as popular as the travelling in nowadays merchants would invest magnificent funds for estate firms for making a big profitable feedbacking(feedback). Since the argument fails to account for this alternative explanation for the average property values have tripled in Brookville, the argument's arguer cannot make any sound recommodations(recommendations) to law firms based on that the landscaping and painting house.
  As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that what about reasons that  Brookville's average property values have raised and how about the situation with the property values in Brrokville through upon the restriction law firm. Additionally, the arguer must provide evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might weaken the argument.  
楼主写的很用心，论证合理，用词准确！一起加油啊！