Argument2【Aero小组】第6次作业

m2zhyUID: 2440721

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."


The arguer recommends that homeowners in Deerhave Acres(DA) community should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise their property values, by citing the fact that average property values of nearby Brookville community have tripled since adopting the implementation seven years ago. However, it is insufficient to support the argument.

First of all, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that it is the restrictions on landscaping and house painting that makes Brookville’s average property values tripled. However, the argument contains no information to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that potential homebuyers would take primarily interest in other factors, such as house pattern, community location, and traffic conditions and so on. For most of homebuyers, it is more important to consider of utilities of house than superficial appearance.

Secondly，even the restrictions has increased the Brookville’s property values, the arguer failed to prove the restrictions seven years ago would still bring about the same result at the present time. There is no information in this argument about what patterns and colors the homebuyers would like to choose now. Could they still accept the outmoded exterior appearance like Brookville’s, or they even prefer to choose more modern style? Seven years is enough for homebuyers to refresh their interest in community exterior style in present fast life. And the continuing erection of new communities with various exterior appearances also provides much more choices for homebuyers. In these cases, it is hard to guarantee the course of action could result in a new increase now.

Finally, the arguer unfairly asserts that the restrictions would also help DA’s homeowners raise their property values as Brookville did. However, there might be much difference between Brookville and DA, which might lead to a different result. It is possible that potential homebuyers in Brookville much more interested in home’s exterior appearance than DA’s. It also likely that homeowners in DA would not like to sell their house, because they are not interested in sales but dwelling for their own. For these matters, adopting the restrictions in DA would only tend to waste money but do anything profitable for the property values.     

In conclusion, to prove that the adoption of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in DA would play a leading role in raising the property values, rather than any of other factors, the arguer must supply more sufficient and clearer information about differences between Brookville and DA, market reflection on community exterior appearance and homeowner’s attitude about sales in DA.

saavedroUID: 2423190

The arguer recommends that homeowners in Deerhave Acres(DA) community should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise their property values, by citing the fact that average property values of nearby Brookville community have tripled since adopting the implementation(这个词是不是有点问题？这个是iimplement的名词形式） seven years ago. However, it is insufficient to support the argument.

First of all, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that it is the restrictions on landscaping and house painting that makes Brookville’s average property values tripled. However, the argument contains no information to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that potential homebuyers would take primarily interest in other factors（这个表示质疑不知道行不行？）, such as house pattern, community location, and traffic conditions（还是加入限定比较好，周围的交通情况) and so on. For most of homebuyers, it is more important to consider of utilities of house than superficial appearance(这句话总结的非常好，但是句子有错误， to consider of  改成 to consider with）.

Secondly，even the restrictions has increased the Brookville’s property values, the arguer failed to prove the restrictions seven years ago would still bring about the same result at the present time. There is no information in this argument about what patterns and colors the homebuyers would like to choose now. Could they still accept the outmoded exterior appearance like Brookville’s, or they even prefer to choose more modern style? Seven years is enough for homebuyers to (refresh这个词用得好) their interest in community exterior style in present fast life(读者有点别扭）. And the continuing erection of new communities with various exterior appearances also provides much more choices for homebuyers. In these cases, it is hard to guarantee the course of action could result in a new increase now. (这两句话一个原因，一个结果非常精辟）

Finally, the arguer unfairly asserts that the restrictions would also help DA’s homeowners raise their property values as Brookville did. However, there might be much difference between Brookville and DA, which might lead to a different result. It is possible that potential homebuyers in Brookville much more interested in home’s exterior appearance than DA’s. It also likely that homeowners in DA would not like to sell their house, because they are not interested in sales but dwelling for their own. For these matters, adopting the restrictions in DA would only tend to waste money but do anything profitable for the property values.   （这是不是用该用并列关系啊，。 not only but as well) 就是说即是浪费钱也是没能提高收益？  

In conclusion, to prove that the adoption of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in DA would play a leading role in raising the property values, rather than any of other factors, the arguer must supply more sufficient and clearer information about differences between Brookville and DA, market reflection on community exterior appearance and homeowner’s attitude about sales in DA.

可乐加冰84UID: 2221571

The arguer recommends that homeowners in Deerhave Acres(DA) community should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise their property values, by citing the fact that average property values of nearby Brookville community have tripled since adopting the implementation seven years ago. However, it is insufficient to support the argument.First of all, the arguer falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that it is the restrictions on landscaping and house painting that makes Brookville’s average property values tripled. However, the argument contains no information to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that potential homebuyers would take primarily interest in other factors, such as house pattern, community location, and traffic conditions and so on. For most of homebuyers, it is more important to consider of utilities of house than superficial appearance.Secondly，even the restrictions has increased the Brookville’s property values, the arguer failed to prove the restrictions seven years ago would still bring about the same result at the present time. There is no information in this argument about what patterns and colors the homebuyers would like to choose now. Could they still accept the outmoded exterior appearance like Brookville’s, or they even prefer to choose more modern style? Seven years is enough for homebuyers to refresh their interest in community exterior style in present fast life. And the continuing erection of new communities with various exterior appearances also provides much more choices for homebuyers. In these cases, it is hard to guarantee the course of action could result in a new increase now. Finally, the arguer unfairly asserts that the restrictions would also help DA’s homeowners raise their property values as Brookville did. However, there might be much difference between Brookville and DA, which might lead to a different result. It is possible that potential homebuyers in Brookville much more interested in home’s exterior appearance than DA’s. It also likely that homeowners in DA would not like to sell their house, because they are not interested in sales but dwelling for their own. For these matters, adopting the restrictions in DA would only tend to waste money but do anything profitable for the property values.     In conclusion, to prove that the adoption of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in DA would play a leading role in raising the property values, rather than any of other factors, the arguer must supply more sufficient and clearer information about differences between Brookville and DA, market reflection on community exterior appearance and homeowner’s attitude about sales in DA.
写的很好，语言流畅简洁，论证层次感强，理由充分。一起加油啊！