为我作用 第五次

小猪sisiUID: 2453484

2The 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."
3-28 30min
The arguer asserts that the property value would be raised if The Deerhaven Acres
adopt the same restrictions that Brookville community did seven years ago for
the reason that when the set of restrictions were applied in the Brookville
community, average property values have tripled in Brookville. However, the
argument seems to be sound and convincing at first glance, it suffers from
several fallacies when taken into further consideration.

First of all, the arguer attributes raise of average property value to the
restrictions established by Brookville community. Though it seems to be reasonable
the arguer omits to offer evidence to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationship
between the rise of average property value and the application of restrictions.
It is entirely possible that the new business policy in Brookville community
drawn numerous enterprises to invest in the market of property of Brookville,
which urged the increasing in the average price of the property. Thus, unless the
arguer supplies sufficient evidence to prove the effect of the restrictions, we
have no way to value this argument.

Further, as the arguer said that the restrictions were adopt seven years ago.
It is justified to question the time effect of these restrictions, because as
common sense, the policy should be changing as the time spanning. So do restrictions.
Perhaps nowadays people would prefer to live in the houses distinguished from others
Therefore, if the community complies the same restrictions as seven years ago,
it may not be useful but may be harmful in increasing the value of property. Thus,
even though we could admit that a set of restrictions could be the cause of the increasing
of the price of the property, we should not neglect the point the these restrictions
could be overdue after seven years.

Finally, undoubtedly we should no the possibility that the restriction will still
work after seven years and it indeed could lead the increasing in the value of
property. Notwithstanding, it is the case in Brookville that extremely different
from the Deerhaven Acres. Thus the adoption of these restrictions in the Deerhaven
Acres should be measured by the information offered by arguer. However, the arguer
does inform us any evidence about the point I mentioned above ,and then we should
not hasty to make decisions to adopt the same set restrictions in the
Deerhaven Acres.

After pointing out so many obvious flaws in the argument, we can conclude that
the arguer's opinion is partly proper but highly unacceptable. To make the argument
more convincing, the arguer should offer the direct evidence to illustrate that
the property price increasing in Brookville is due to the adoption of a set of
restrictions and after seven years, this set of restrictions are still work. And
also to better comment this argument, we need more information about the Deerhaven
Acres to judge whether a set of restrictions would be as serviceable as it did in
Brookville community.


185"Scandals—whether in politics, academia, or other areas—can be useful. They
focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could."
3-28 45min+10
Do scandals can be useful? As the view of the author, these scandals could take
people's attention to the issues in a different way. I agree with the author that
scandals sometimes could not only be the minor to show how evil are people but
a landmark to guide people to think in different aspects.

First and foremost, scandals draw a large amount of attention from people. Maybe the
favorite thing that people would like to talk about is scandals in all fields
involving politics, academic and entertainment. It is the common sense of people,
that the best way to attract public eyes is to convey scandals. When producers
what audiences or media to focus on their new films, they just make some scandals
of the actors or actress that the actor will divorce with his wife because he
had fallen in love with the actress in the film. Similarly, in the political area,
candidates always make them look good by faked scandals. Thus, none would neglect
the power of scandals in drawing people's eyes.

Furthermore, scandals could attract people to realize the issue that they
never think about. People sometimes do not discover the evil side of people until
scandals are relieved by media. Take Watergate for example, how many people could
image that their respectful President would do such shame thing to beat his
opponents .And so did students, who would never realize that their admired
professors actually  never done any researches but just copy them from their
students. There are so many scandals to make us to believe the truth that people,
however admired and responsible will cheat you sometimes. Therefore, as the
appearance of scandals, we realize the events that may not be told.

Finally, we do not deny the usefulness of scandals to focus our attention on
problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could, nevertheless scandals
is a double-edge sword that it may interrupt our normal lives. The overemphasis on the
scandals would do nothing but mislead the public. Sometimes people are so
attracted to the scandals that they forget what is the most important thing.
When the scandal of Clinton and Lewinski was exposed to the public, the thing that
Americans care about is what new evidence found in the White House but not
the important policy that made by the government. How many Americans in that time
turn on the news was to focus on the country but not on the scandal? In addition,
the interests in scandals become the catalyst of some media to do abnormal things
such as the cause of the death of Dianna--media had no irresponsibility to the death.
And there are numerous public figure complaint that their privacy are totally lost
by the interests of people to chase scandals. Thus, overemphasis on the scandals
will have no help but just poison the country.

From the analyze made above, in some degree I appreciate the view of the author that
sometimes scandals does focus our attention in ways that no speakers or reformers
ever could. However, I need to add that overemphasis or undue focus on scandals
can not value nothing but adverse the society, the county and its people.  



[ 本帖最后由 小猪sisi 于 2008-3-29 12:55 编辑 ]

bitdxcUID: 2465290

Argument

The arguer asserts that the property value would be raised if The Deerhaven Acres adopt the same restrictions that Brookville community did seven years ago for the reason that when the set of restrictions were applied in the Brookville community, average property values have tripled in Brookville. However, the argument seems to be sound and convincing at first glance, it suffers from several fallacies when taken into further consideration.

First of all, the arguer attributes raise of average property value to the restrictions established by Brookville community. Though it seems to be reasonable the arguer omits to offer evidence to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationship between the rise of average property value and the application of restrictions. It is entirely possible that the new business policy in Brookville community drawn numerous enterprises to invest in the market of property of Brookville, which urged the increasing in the average price of the property. Thus, unless the arguer supplies sufficient evidence to prove the effect of the restrictions, we have no way to value this argument.

Further, as the arguer said that the restrictions were adopt(adopted) seven years ago. It is justified to question the time effect of these restrictions, because as common sense, the policy should be changing as the time spanning, so do restrictions. Perhaps nowadays people would prefer to live in the houses distinguished from others. Therefore, if the community complies the same restrictions as seven years ago, it may not be useful but may be harmful in increasing the value of property. Thus, even though we could admit that a set of restrictions could be the cause of the increasing
of the price of the property, we should not neglect the point the these restrictions could be overdue (outdated更好) after seven years.

Finally, undoubtedly we should no(no何意？) the possibility that the restriction will still work after seven years and it indeed could lead the increasing in the value of property. Notwithstanding, it is the case in Brookville that extremely different from the Deerhaven Acres. Thus the adoption of these restrictions in the Deerhaven Acres should be measured by the information offered by arguer. However, the arguer does(doesn’t) inform us any evidence about the point I mentioned above, and then we should not hasty to make decisions to adopt the same set restrictions in the Deerhaven Acres.

After pointing out so many obvious flaws in the argument, we can conclude that the arguer's opinion is partly proper but highly unacceptable. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should offer the direct evidence to illustrate that the property price increasing in Brookville is due to the adoption of a set of restrictions and after seven years, this set of restrictions are still work. And also to better comment this argument, we need more information about the Deerhaven
Acres to judge whether a set of restrictions would be as serviceable as it did in Brookville community.

评价：
逻辑清楚，批驳有力，语言不错。


Issue

Do scandals can be useful? As the view of the author, these scandals could take people's attention to the issues in a different way. I agree with the author that scandals sometimes could not only be the minor to show how evil are people but a landmark to guide people to think in different aspects.

First and foremost, scandals draw a large amount of attention from people. Maybe the favorite thing that people would like to talk about is scandals in all fields involving politics, academic and entertainment. It is the common sense of people, that the best way to attract public eyes is to convey scandals. When producers what audiences or media to focus on their new films, they just make some scandals of the actors or actress that the actor will divorce with his wife because he had fallen in love with the actress in the film. Similarly, in the political area, candidates always make them look good by faked scandals. Thus, no one would neglect the power of scandals in drawing people's eyes.

Furthermore, scandals could attract people to realize the issue that they never think about. People sometimes do not discover the evil sides of people until scandals are relieved by media. Take Watergate for example, how many people could image that their respectful President would do such shame thing to beat his opponents .And so did students, who would never realize that their admired professors actually  never done any researches but just copy them from their students. There are so many scandals to make us to believe the truth that people, however admired and responsible will cheat you sometimes. Therefore, as the appearance of scandals, we realize the events that may not be told.

Finally, we do not deny the usefulness of scandals to focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could, nevertheless scandal is a double-edge sword that it may interrupt our normal lives. The overemphasis on the scandals would do nothing but mislead the public. Sometimes people are so attracted to the scandals that they forget what the most important thing is. When the scandal of Clinton and Lewinski was exposed to the public, the thing that Americans care about is what new evidence found in the oral office but not the important policy that made by the government. How many Americans in that time turn on the news was to focus on the country but not on the scandal? In addition, the interests in scandals become the catalyst of some media to do abnormal things such as the cause of the death of Deanna--media had no irresponsibility to the death. And there are numerous public figure complaint that their privacy are totally lost by the interests of people to chase scandals. Thus, overemphasis on the scandals
will have no help but just poison(换成harm更好) the country.

From the analyze(analysis) made above, in some degree I appreciate the view of the author that sometimes scandals does focus our attention in ways that no speakers or reformers ever could. However, I need to add that overemphasis or undue focus on scandals can not(删掉) value nothing but adverse the society, the county and its people.  

评价：
观点明确清晰，分析透彻，语言较好。结尾再深化一下主题，而不是简单重复文中观点，会更好。