Arguement2 [thrive小组]第一次作业---esily

esilyUID: 2451243

TOPIC: 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."


      Merely based on the unfounded assumption. The statement draws the conclusion that restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will enhance property values at Deerhaven Acre. To strengthern this conclusion, the arguer points out the evidence that Brookville’s rising property values are attributable to the implementation of these restrictions. At first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument. From the personal perspective, as discussed below, this argument suffers from several critical flaws therefore unpersuasive.

      The threshold problem with this argument is that the arguer depends on the assumption that no factors other than Brookville’s restrictions on landscaping and housepainting causes Brookville’s rising property value. However, common sense informs me that this assumption is a poor one. A myriad of other factors, including universal increment of estate prize or increasing requirement of such area, might just as likely be the cause of Brookville’s rising property values. Without these and other possible reasons, the author cannot justifiable conclude that only by restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will enhance property values of Brookville.

      Even assuming that Brookville’s rising property values are attributable to the implementation of these restrictions, the arguer assumption that this course of action would be feasible. However the assumption is unwarranted because things rarely remain the same over extended periods of time. The arguer neglect that the taste before seven years might be unfashionable for today even for future. People might concern more about some other factors instead: public establishment or ambience—to just a few possibilities. Without ruling out these and other scenarios, the author cannot establish the cause-and-effect relationship between the restrictions seven years ago and Brookville’s rising property values nowadays, upon which the arguer recommendation depends.
Even assuming that Brookville’s rising property values nowadays are still based on the restrictions, the arguer fails to consider possible differences between Brookville and Deerhaven Acre That might help to bring about a different result for Deerhaven Acre. The arguer assumes without justification that the background conditions are the same at different location. There are likely all kinds of differences between Brookville and Deerhaven Acre. For instance, the differences of average earning、environment and personal interesting. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the restrictions of Brookville is suitable for Deerhaven Acre.

      To sum up, the arguer fails to strengthen his clam that restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will enhance property values at Deerhaven Acre, because the evidence cited in this argument does not lend credible support to what the arguer maintains. To make this argument more convincing, the arguer would have to do some survey that nowadays whether this restrictions is wildly accepted by the masses at Deerhaven Acre. Therefore, if this argument had included the given factors mentioned above, the statement could have become thorough and logically acceptable.



提纲：
原文结论：为了使DA的地产升值，应该对于景观和房屋涂色实施自己的决定。
原文例证：7年前，B区实施关于该社区庭院布置及房屋涂色规定后，B的地产平均价格翻了三番。
逻辑错误：
1．（因果）B区地产的升值，未必是由于庭院布置和房屋颜色的原因导致的，可能由于其他原因：
（1）地价整体上升
（2）那个地段的需求量增大等
2．（时序）即使因为颜色和布置原因导致地价的升值，7年前人们的喜好未必延续到现在，更不一定延续到将来，人们可能会关心其他的因素：
（1）公共设施
（2）周围环境
3．（外推）即使以上两种假设是成立的，也是B区存在的，未必可以直接套用到DA区，因为各区因素不一样：
（1）人均收入
（2）地理位置
（3）人们的喜好等
改进方法：调查DA区附近作对于设置规划的调查
2008-2-1 20：10-23:06

[ 本帖最后由 esily 于 2008-2-2 23:30 编辑 ]

westwindyiUID: 2453478

个人意见已经在文中给出。

Merely based on the unfounded assumption. The statement draws the conclusion that restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will enhance property values at Deerhaven Acre. To strengthern this conclusion, the arguer points out the evidence that Brookville’s rising property values are attributable to the implementation of these restrictions. At first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument. From the personal perspective, as discussed below, this argument suffers from several critical flaws therefore unpersuasive.

      The threshold problem with this argument is that the arguer depends on the assumption that no factors other than Brookville’s restrictions on landscaping and housepainting causes Brookville’s rising property value. However, common sense informs me that this assumption is a poor one. A myriad of other factors, including universal increment of estate prize or increasing requirement of such area, might just as likely be the cause of Brookville’s rising property values. Without these and other possible reasons（作者一定是想表达“在没有排除可能原因的情况下”，可以考虑改为，without excluding these....）, the author cannot justifiable(应该用该词的副词形式) conclude that only by restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will enhance property values of Brookville.

      Even assuming that Brookville’s rising property values are（is） attributable to the implementation of these restrictions, the arguer（arguer's） assumption that this course of action would be feasible. However the assumption(你前面说了假定假设成立，后面或许你的意思是 他的结论仍然是没有根据的，所以assumption应该改成argument?) is unwarranted because things rarely remain the same over extended periods of time. The arguer neglect（negnects） that the taste before seven years might be unfashionable for today even for future. People might concern more about some other factors instead: public establishment or ambience—to just a few possibilities. Without ruling out these and other scenarios, the author cannot establish the cause-and-effect relationship between the restrictions seven years ago and Brookville’s rising property values nowadays, upon which the arguer recommendation depends(个人认为这句话虽然漂亮，但似乎做他因论证段的结尾更好).
Even assuming that Brookville’s rising property values nowadays are still based on the restrictions, the arguer fails to consider possible differences between Brookville and Deerhaven Acre That might help to bring about a different result for Deerhaven Acre. The arguer assumes without justification that the background conditions are the same at different location. There are likely all kinds of differences between Brookville and Deerhaven Acre. For instance, the differences of average earning、environment and personal interesting. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the restrictions of Brookville is suitable for Deerhaven Acre.

      To sum up, the arguer fails to strengthen his claim that restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will enhance property values at Deerhaven Acre, because the evidence cited in this argument does not lend credible support to what the arguer maintains. To make this argument more convincing, the arguer would have to do some survey that nowadays whether this restrictions is wildly accepted by the masses at Deerhaven Acre. Therefore, if this argument had included the given factors mentioned above, the statement could have become thorough and logically acceptable.