deleted

zhuzhuorUID: 2452739

deleted

舒子baxiaUID: 2401739

This argument concludes that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting as those who are living in Brookville, because after the set is adopted(being adopted) in Brookville, the average property values there have tripled. The argument suffers from several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

A threshold problem with the argument is whether the adopted set of restrictions is the chief factor of the increasing of the average property values in Brookville. Maybe seven years ago, there are something else happened which consumedly promote the value growth. For example, maybe the vestiges of an ancient civilization were found in Brookville. Then Brookville suddenly became famous, and citizens there earned lots of money from visitors. Or perhaps some natural resources began to be exploited seven years ago, and the average earnings of selling those resources make the average property values increased. Without ruling out other explanations for the increasing of the average property values, we cannot justifiably conclude the relationship between the set of restrictions and the value growth.

Even if the implementation of those restrictions makes the average property values in Brookville tripled, the familiar methods may be no effective in Deerhaven Acres. Deerhaven Acres and Brookville affirmatively have different natural environment and business structure and the both(two) may have very different issues on their economic development ways. There is no use just to copy the methods in Brookville. Even more, homeowners in Deerhaven Acre may be more(似乎可以省去) reluctant to implement such restrictions. Maybe in Deerhaven Acre there are more old residents, who love their own unique landscaping and housepainting, do not want to obey the new restrictions.

Finally, assuming that the implementation of familiar restrictions in Deerhaven Acres brought the increasing of the average property values seven years ago, but the same method may be useless in the days ahead. The environment has always been changing with time.(这句话似乎有点不妥) Perhaps the old solution cannot meet the need of today, and even be harmful. Appropriate solution should base on the real situations surrounding.

In conclusion, the argument is weak on several grounds. To strengthen it the argument’s proponent must provide clearer evidence that the familiar set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting is useful in Deerhaven Acres today.

comments:
文章分析的比较好,基本的逻辑错误也都找出来了.提一点小建议,在正文的一二段最好加上 first, second之类的逻辑词.
继续加油