Argument2[Aero_sixth]

houyanchunUID: 2432949

argu第2题
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.'

In this argument, the author claims that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, the dwellers should adopt the same method of restriction on landscaping and house painting as Brookville's. To support his conclusion, the author provides that average property values in Brookville have tripled since they adopt above method. The claim is seemed reasonable at first sight, but there are crucial fallacies by consideration carefully.

First of all, the situation would be different at present from seven years ago. It is very possible that the method which has produced good effect could not bring anticipated results for the state and environment have changed a lot comparing to before. The author fails to consider this point so that we can not be convince to agree with the author's conclusion.

Secondly, the various conditions in Deerhaven Acres such as geographic environment and so forth are not consent with Brookville. It is entire possible that same the methods could not produce desired effect for Deerhaven Acres though they are successful in Brookville due to different exterior conditions. Without offering relative evidences to explain whether special conditions of two places are similar or not, the conclusion is poor credible.

Thirdly, the author fails to establish a necessary causal relation between the method of house painting and landscape and the increased property. There are alternatives for the property prompting, for example the assiduity of the people in Brookville and new machines and regulations are introduced to improve the quality of farm produce so that attracting a great number of businessmen to prearrange goods even though they can not adopt a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted.  Without ruling out these alternatives, the conclusion is not validated simply.

In order to convince us that the conclusion is credible, the author should provide more evidences to explain that special conditions in two places are identical and the situation have not changed compared to seven years ago. Furthermore, the author should offer more compelling evidences to indicate that the causal relation that the adopted method and the increased property conserves believing.

lovemxfUID: 2335206

In this argument, the author claims that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, the dwellers should adopt the same method of restriction on landscaping and house painting as Brookville's. To support his conclusion, the author provides that average property values in Brookville have tripled since they adopt above method. The claim is seemed reasonable at first sight, but there are crucial fallacies by consideration carefully.

First of all, the situation would be different at present from seven years ago. It is very possible that the method which has produced good effect could not bring anticipated results for the state and environment have changed a lot comparing to before. The author fails to consider this point so that we can not be convince(d) to agree with the author's conclusion.

Secondly, the various conditions in Deerhaven Acres such as geographic environment and so forth are not consent(similar) with Brookville. It is entire possible that same the methods(the same methods)could not produce desired effect for Deerhaven Acres though they are(were) successful in Brookville due to different exterior conditions. Without offering relative evidences to explain whether special conditions of two places are similar or not, the conclusion is poor credible.(这段是错误类比最好在多说一点不同的差别,比如是说DA的经济也许没有B的好,买房的人不会很多,不能有相同结果,这样会更有力度)

Thirdly, the author fails to establish a necessary causal relation between the method of house painting and landscape and the increased property. There are alternatives for the property prompting, for example the assiduity of the people in Brookville and new machines and regulations are introduced to improve the quality of farm produce so that attracting a great number of businessmen to prearrange goods even though they can not adopt a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted.  Without ruling out these alternatives, the conclusion is not validated simply.(还是论证的深度不是很强,我觉的你找的原因很牵强.可以有很多原因比如是经济好了房价上升等等.)

In order to convince us that the conclusion is credible, the author should provide more evidences to explain that special conditions in two places are identical and the situation have not changed compared to seven years ago. Furthermore, the author should offer more compelling evidences to indicate that the causal relation that(cause relationship between) the adopted method and the increased property conserves (conserve)believing.
主要问题就是论证的深度还不是强,希望在加强一下.

liuyingbnuUID: 2321970

In this argument, the author claims that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, the dwellers should adopt the same method of restriction on landscaping and house painting as Brookville's. To support his conclusion, the author provides that average property values in Brookville have tripled since they adopt above method. The claim is seemed reasonable at first sight, but there are crucial fallacies by consideration carefully (by 后面这个结构感觉有点奇怪).

First of all, the situation would be different at present from seven years ago. It is very possible that the method which has produced good effect could not bring anticipated results for the state and environment have changed a lot comparing（compared） to before. The author fails to consider this point so that we can not be convince(d) to agree with the author's conclusion.

Secondly, the various conditions in Deerhaven Acres such as geographic environment and so forth are not consent(consistent) with Brookville. It is entire(ly) possible that same the methods could not produce desired effect for Deerhaven Acres though they are successful in Brookville due to different exterior conditions. Without offering relative evidences to explain whether special conditions of two places are similar or not, the conclusion is poor credible.

Thirdly, the author fails to establish a necessary causal relation between the method of house painting and landscape and the increased property. There are alternatives for the property prompting, for example the assiduity of the people in Brookville and new machines and regulations are introduced to improve the quality of farm produce so that attracting a great number of businessmen to prearrange goods even though they can not adopt a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted.  Without ruling out these alternatives, the conclusion is not validated simply.

In order to convince us that the conclusion is credible, the author should provide more evidences to explain that special conditions in two places are identical and the situation have not changed compared to seven years ago. Furthermore, the author should offer more compelling evidences to indicate that the causal relation that(between) the adopted method and the increased property conserves believing.
问题抓得不错，不过在具体论述的时候，可以多举写具体的例子，展开说。