Argument2 Thrive小组第1次作业 处女作，请指教

WraithboyUID: 2283931

题目：Argue 2 :
"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and whatcolors 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."

正文：

  In this letter,the committee of Deerhaven Acres(D) suggust that in order to increase D’s property value,D should follow a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.To substantiate this point,the committee cite a example of nearby community Brrokville(B)whose average property value has tripled after the adoption of some restricitions.However,after a close inspection,we may find the suggestion has several logical flaws.

  First and foremost, the committee simply assume that B’s tripled property value is due to B’s adoption of some landscaping restrictions,which is unwarranted. Since the committee provide us no sufficient evidence to substantiate the linkage between the two phenomena, we have reason to doubt that if it is the restrictions that causes the tripled property values.Maybe in these years, the traffic system of B has made a big progress,in which more and more people are willing to settle down in this community. Or perhaps, B’s committee has spent plenty of money advertising their estates. In a word, with out excluding all these possible factors, we can not be convinced that it is the restriction leads to the tripled property values.
  Second, even if the assumption above is right. the committee fail to recognize that the B’s restriction was adopted seven years ago which may have no effect now. Perhaps , during the seven years, people’s preference of estates and the governments’ policy, for a high possibility, has changed. If so,we can not prove that this measure is also suitable now.
  At last,enven if the time is not a problem, the committee holds that the measure taken in B will leads to the same result to D, totally overlooks the difference between B and D. For instance, People in D may pay more attention to the furnishment and the supporting facilities rather than the landscaping and housepainting. And will the people in D all support this recommendation as people in B do ? etc. The committee should take a futher consideration of these factors before they draw the conclution.
  To sum up, the committee’s suggestion is based merely on assumption. Because there is no evidence showing the relationship between B’s restriction and B’s tripled property value nor the similarities between B and D. In order to make the suggestion more convincing, the committee should do more research and analysis for the question mentioned above.

[ 本帖最后由 Wraithboy 于 2008-2-3 20:49 编辑 ]

yiyilovUID: 2312799

In this letter,the committee of Deerhaven Acres(D) suggust that in order to increase D’s property value,D should follow a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.To substantiate this point,the committee cite a example of nearby community Brrokville(B)whose average property value has tripled after the adoption of some restricitions.However,after a close inspection,we may find the suggestion has several logical flaws.

  First and foremost, the committee simply assume that B’s tripled property value is due to B’s adoption of some landscaping restrictions,which is unwarranted.(如果你要表达的主要意思是"...没根据",那最好不要把unwarranted放在从句里,这样有点主次不分) Since the committee provide us no sufficient evidence to substantiate the linkage between the two phenomena, we have reason to doubt that if it is the restrictions that causes(cause) the tripled property values.Maybe in these years, the traffic system of B has made a big progress,in which more and more people are willing to settle down in this community. Or perhaps, B’s committee has spent plenty of money advertising their estates. In a word, with out excluding all these possible factors, we can not be convinced that it is the restriction leads to the tripled property values.
  Second, even if the assumption above is right. the committee fail to recognize that the B’s restriction was adopted seven years ago which may have no effect now. Perhaps , during the seven years, people’s preference of estates and the governments’ policy, for a high possibility, has changed. If so,we can not prove that this measure is also suitable now.
  At last,enven if the time is not a problem, the committee holds that the measure taken in B will leads to the same result to D, totally overlooks the difference between B and D. For instance, People in D may pay more attention to the furnishment and the supporting facilities rather than the landscaping and housepainting. And will the people in D all support this recommendation as people in B do ? etc. The committee should take a futher consideration of these factors before they draw the conclution.
  To sum up, the committee’s suggestion is based merely on assumption. Because there is no evidence showing the relationship between B’s restriction and B’s tripled property value nor the similarities between B and D. In order to make the suggestion more convincing, the committee should do more research and analysis for the question mentioned above.

你这篇是自己写的话,我就没语言了,以后得向你学习了,恕我改不出来,看得好惭愧啊......都不敢下笔写了,有些word可以改出来的错误我就没动...不得不佩服，伱的模仿能力太强了...


[ 本帖最后由 yiyilov 于 2008-2-5 22:12 编辑 ]