argument2 thrive小组 有拍比回啊~~!

linkccUID: 2413074

In this letter, the author claims that average property values have tripled in Brookvill because seven years ago 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. And claims that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, the committee of homeowners should adopt the same restriction as Brookville.However,. In several respects, there is little credible support for the argument.

First of all, the problem with the argument is that the author commits a "cause-and-effect" fallacy. The author argues that the adoption of a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted is responsible for the average property values in Brookvill. However, there is no evidence that a set of restriction caused the increase of average of property values. In all likelihood many other could also bring the same result. Perhaps, the needs for housing in Brookvill has increased as many times as that seven years ago; or perhaps the adjustment of inflaion attributed to the increase of average of property values. Without in details analyzing all other such factors, the author cannot draw a conclusion that the same restriction would similarly affect the property values in Deerhaven Acres.

Second, even assuming that a set of restriction have a great effect on the increase of property values. The author also hastily assumes that people would prefer the same style of house as seven years ago. It is highly possible that now people have a great averseness towards the restriction and choose a different style of house. Without taking account into these possibilities, the author cannot persuade me to believe the argument.

Finally, even assuming that people have a favor the restriction, it is highly doubtful that the Deerhaven Acres is analogous to the Brookville in all respects. Moreover, there are points of differences far outweighing the similarities between these two cities. For example, the traffic situation of Brookville and the health care is more better than Deerhaven Acr; residents of Brookvill would like to cost more money on housing than Deerhaven Acr.If so, the author cannot justify a same effect on Deerhaven Acr.

In conclusion, the author has not convinced me that adopting the same restriction on Brookville  would increase the average property values in Deerhaven Acr . To better evaluate the argument, I would need more information that the restriction on Brookville is efficient in increasing the average property values. Furthermore, the author also provide the information the differences of two cities and the current favor of residents in housing style .

linkccUID: 2413074

顶一下 谁帮我改下啊 有拍比回 啊~~!

talkelfaUID: 2409503

主要讲当中三段吧
第一, the needs for housing in Brookvill has increased as many times as that seven years ago;这个例子没将完全,需求增高了,然后呢?尽管我知道你要表达价格会上涨,但是没说清楚,就算加一句,因此导致价格上涨也会完整许多.或者在这前加一句,价格和需求是正比的.这样也行.第二个PERHAPS个人觉得不合适,通货膨胀会导致钞票贬值价格上涨,但是不会导致价值上涨.价值和价格这两者是有差别的.你可以说由于当地经济发展,比如修建了个大型商场,开了条高速公路之类,导致土地增值.还有通货膨胀拼错了.下次发上来之前先导WORD里改一下.
第二,我觉得TS可以这么说,作者没有证据证明七年前的政策现在依旧有效.先指出错误,然后再开始说,可能七年前人们口味和现在不同了之类的.因为在原文中,作者并没有说人们喜欢这个政策,这个是你自己推断后加上去的.
第三,你要说两者有很大不同,可以,但是不同的结果是什么?就是A地的政策放B地未必会有效.这点一定要指出.到后面举例出现问题了.主要论证的是放到B地后,价格可能不会上涨.什么原因导致B地不会上涨?比如说B的本来的特色就是多样化,你加了个政策后反而没了特点,价值就下跌了.而你给的例子却是证明A地的房价为什么比B地高.下政策的目的是让本地房价升值,不是让B地价格赶超A.

语言方面有些词貌似用得不太对,不过我自己语言很烂,只能看懂意思,不知道怎么改.The author argues that the adoption of a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted is responsible for the average property values in Brookvill. 这句是不是直接从原文抄下来的?其实没必要那么复杂.The author argues that the adoption of restrictions is responsible for the increase average property value in B. 不用担心字数不够．中间道理说全说清楚字数肯定不成问题．我觉得你例子就差那么一句就能很完整说明了，但是你让我在那边自己推断．．不厚道啊．．

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... 6amp%3Btypeid%3D102
楼主帮我也看下吧．．大家互相帮助