Argument2 我的第一篇，求拍

zxwindUID: 2362911

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."


提纲：
A 实行的规定与地产价格上涨没有必然联系
B 利用brookville的情况类比，但是不一定有适用性



In this letter, the author recommends that restrictions on landscaping and housepainting been adopted in Deerhaven Acres(DA) in order to raise local property values.  To support this recommendation, the author cites the example of Brookville (B) community. However this recommendation relies on a serious of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
First of all, in this letter the author, the author points out the adoption of restriction on landscaping and housepainting in B and the fact that the average property values there tripled. The author contributes the rising of values to those restriction. However it is possible that the average property values rises because of some other reasons, such as that a new business open there  or people believe the environment there is suit for living or the majority values does not change but a few lands price rise heavily due to reasons which have no relationship with the restriction at all. The letter fails to account for the alternative explanations for the rising of average property values in B, the letter’s author can not make any recommendation to the adoption of restriction based on the tripled average property values in B.
Furthermore even if the average property values actually rise because of the restriction, the author can not conclude that similar restriction may success in DA. Consider that the property value in DA may be too high to rise any more, or the residents in DA don’t like someone to restrict their preference on their own house. Moreover DA might be famous for its various house styles, and therefore has a very high property values, such restriction will not work as expected but decrease the values dramatically. Thus without more information of DA, the author can’t convince me the recommendation will rise the property values in DA.
In conclusion, the recommendation for adoption of the restriction on landscaping and housepainting is not well supported. To strengthen it the author must provide better evidence that the rising of property values is really due to the restriction adopted there. To better evaluate the recommendation I need more information of DA including the geographical surrounding and the potential attitude of residents toward those restrictions.

[ 本帖最后由 zxwind 于 2008-1-30 10:13 编辑 ]

hellousa09UID: 2427652

In this letter, the author recommends that restrictions on landscaping and housepainting been adopted in Deerhaven Acres(DA) in order to raise local property values.  To support this recommendation, the author cites the example of Brookville (B) community. However this recommendation relies on a serious of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, in this letter the author, the author (两个author？) points out the adoption of restriction on landscaping and housepainting in B and the fact that the average property values there tripled.（这句有语法错，adoption没谓语） The author contributes the rising of values to those restriction. However it is possible that the average property values rises because of （due to 更好）some other reasons, such as that a new business open（被动） there  or people believe the environment there is suit for living or the majority values does not change but a few lands price rise heavily due to reasons which have no relationship with the restriction at all（这句太长了吧~~，due to reason 举例）. The letter fails to account for the alternative explanations for the rising of average property values in B, the letter’s author（author即可） can not make any recommendation to the adoption of restriction based on the tripled average property values in B.

Furthermore even if the average property values actually rise because of the restriction, the author can not conclude that similar restriction may success in DA. Consider that the property value in DA may be too high to rise any more, or the residents in DA don’t like someone to restrict their preference on their own house. Moreover DA might be famous for its various house styles, and therefore has a very high property values, such restriction will not work as expected but decrease the values dramatically. Thus without more information of DA, the author can’t convince me the recommendation will rise the property values in DA.

In conclusion, the recommendation for adoption of the restriction on landscaping and housepainting is not well supported. To strengthen it the author must provide better evidence that the rising of property values is really due to the restriction adopted there. To better evaluate the recommendation I need more information of DA including the geographical surrounding and the potential attitude of residents toward those restrictions.

错误都找到了，语言有待加强
谢谢分享