[thrive小组]第一次作业Argument2---yiyilov

yiyilovUID: 2312799

In this argument, the arguer asserts that in Deerhaven Acres we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. Furthermore, to validate the mention-above conclusion, the arguer notes that after adoption about restriction on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors houses should be painted in Brookville community, average values have tripled. The argument seems to present a sound case. However, close examination reveals that the conclusion is problematic in a series of respects and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

Firstly, a mayor problem that the argument presents is that the arguer unfairly assumes that the restriction which Brookville community adopted is responsible for the increasing property values. Otherwise, the sequence of these events, in itself, can not convince us that such restriction that Brookville community adopted serves to the increase of the property values of Brookville. And the arguer fails to rule out the other alternatives concerning the increase of the property of Brookville. Perhaps, in the period of last seven year, a great number of residents in Brookville need places where they could live. Because of fewer houses or apartments available for them, the average property was ascending. Also, it is entirely possible that during that period the taxes of the property raised greater than those in the previous period. In the absence of these possibilities, the arguer cannot claim that we should adopt such restrictions.

Another obvious flaw is that the arguer commits a false analogy. It is true that such restriction on landscaping and house painting have affected the increase of the property values in Brookville. Nevertheless, no evidence indicates that the people in Deerhaven Acres also prefer the changes of landscaping and house painting. Lack of enough information regarding the preference of the people  in Deerhaven Acres, it is difficult to convince us that we should adopted such restriction on landscaping and house painting.

In sum, this argument is not well supported by the arguer. To strengthen the conclusion that the residence of Deerhaven Acres should adopted such restrictions on landscaping and house painting; we have to provide sufficient information about the causes of the increase of average property value. Moreover, to better evaluate the suggestion regarding the adoption on landscaping and house painting, the arguer must offer enough evidence that the situation in Deerhaven Acres is the same as that in Brookville.  

[ 本帖最后由 liyue24 于 2008-2-4 13:48 编辑 ]

WraithboyUID: 2283931

In this argument, the arguer asserts that in Deerhaven Acres we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. Furthermore, to validate the mention-above conclusion, the arguer notes that after adoption about(应该搭配of吧) restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors houses should be painted in Brookville community, where its average values have tripled. The argument seems to present a sound case.
Firstly, a mayor problem that the argument presents is that the arguer unfairly assumes that  restrictions which Brookville community adopted is responsible for the increasing property values. Otherwise, the sequence of these events, in itself, can not convince us that such restrictions that Brookville community adopted serves to the increase of the property values of Brookville. And the arguer fails to rule out the other alternatives concerning the increase of the property of Brookville. Perhaps, in the period of last seven year, a great number of residents in Brookville need places where they could live(where they could live这句话是不是有点罗嗦？改为places to live好些). Because of fewer houses or apartments available for them, the average property was ascending. Also, it is entirely possible that during that period the taxes of the property raised greater than those in the previous period. (税收增加和房价上涨有直接关系吗？)In the absence of these possibilities, the arguer cannot claim that we should adopt such restrictions.

Another obvious flaw is that the arguer commits a false analogy. It is true that such restriction on landscaping and house painting have affected the increase of the property values in Brookville. Nevertheless, no evidence indicates that the people in Deerhaven Acres also prefer the changes of landscaping and house painting. Lack of enough information regarding the preference of the people  in Deerhaven Acres, it is difficult to convince us that we should adopted such restriction on landscaping and house painting.（论述不够深入，完全可以展开）

In sum, this argument is not well supported by the arguer. To strengthen the conclusion that the residence of Deerhaven Acres should adopted such restrictions on landscaping and house painting; we have to provide sufficient information about the causes of the increase of average property value. Moreover, to better evaluate the suggestion regarding the adoption on landscaping and house painting, the arguer must offer enough evidence that the situation in Deerhaven Acres is the same as that in Brookville.  

不知道你是用多少时间完成的，我个人感觉问题主要是在分析上，论证不够深入，语言没多大问题。呵呵，我也刚开始写相互促进吧

[ 本帖最后由 Wraithboy 于 2008-2-4 11:19 编辑 ]