argument2 [SJTU-ETB6 10G] 第3次作业

dacgileUID: 2367722

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."
WORDS: 420          TIME: 00:42:00          DATE: 2007-8-3 13:26:45

By citing the fact that Brookville (B) has tripled its average property values after adopting a set of restrictions on the community's yards, the author reaches the conclusion that they should also adopt restrcitions on landscaping and housepainting. Scrutiny of the argument, however, reveals that it is logically flawed in several respects, which render it unconcincing.

To begin with, the author relies on the assumption that restrictions in B was the reason why the property values tripled. Yet it may not nessisarily be the case. Perhaps the microeconomics in B has increased during the past seven years; for this matter, the general prices of all things in B may go through an increasement. It is also possible that the committee in B not only took restrictions but also set other regulations on the community's yads, for example, offering good services, improving the traffic conditions around these communities, and the like. Without rulling out other alternatives for the increasing values, I am not convinced only by the evidence cited by the author.

Furthermore, even if the reason in fact is the restrictions in B, the author rests on the further assumption that the same results will surely come to Deerhaven Acres (DA), which is also unconvincing. Without considering the detailed situation in DA, the author cannot concludes the property values is to be raised  only through a analogy with B. The demographic situation in DA is possibly different from that in B, in other words, people in DA may have house preferences-- one instance may be that they do not like to be restrained in their own living buildings-- different from that in B. Except for this, the geographic and climate conditions which can also exert influence on the property values possibly differ from that of B.

Last, close examination of the time when the restictions in B took effect remind us that the method may lose its effect in DA. The time has changed, and thus the society has developed. Old restictions maybe has already lost its effect in this respect of raising property values. Without ruling out the changing of the time, the author cannot just extend the experience in the past to the morden or future society.

In conclution, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the author should provide more evidence which can really support the assumption that the increased property values is due to the restrictions. To better assess the argument I would also need to know the exact situation in DA.

zhangjunhaoUID: 2276310

By citing the fact that Brookville (B) has tripled its average property values after adopting a set of restrictions on the community's yards, the author reaches the conclusion that they should also adopt restrcitions on landscaping and housepainting. Scrutiny of the argument, however, reveals that it is logically flawed in several respects, which render it unconcincing.

To begin with, the author relies on the assumption that restrictions in B was the reason why the property values tripled. Yet it may not nessisarily be the case.（这句话就是我要找的表达） Perhaps the microeconomics（这是微观经济学把，你是想表达这个意思？） in B has increased during the past seven years; for this matter, the general prices of all things in B may go through an increasement. It is also possible that the committee in B not only took restrictions but also set other regulations on the community's yads, for example, offering good services, improving the traffic conditions around these communities, and the like（这个短语以前没见过，真是长见识了）. Without rulling out other alternatives for the increasing values, I am not convinced only by the evidence cited by the author.

Furthermore, even if the reason in fact is the restrictions in B（我觉得最好这样表达：the reason of .... is really the restrictions in B), the author rests on the further assumption that the same results will surely come to Deerhaven Acres (DA), which is also unconvincing. Without considering the detailed situation in DA, the author cannot concludes the property values is to be raised  only through a analogy with B. The demographic situation in DA is possibly different from that in B, in other words, people in DA may have house preferences-- one instance may be that they do not like to be restrained in their own living buildings-- different from that in B. Except for this, the geographic and climate conditions which can also exert influence on the property values possibly differ from that of B.（这里的错误就是false analogy）

Last, close examination of the time when the restictions in B took effect remind us that the method may lose its effect in DA. The time has changed, and thus the society has developed. Old restictions maybe has already lost its effect in this respect of raising property values. Without ruling out the changing of the time, the author cannot just extend the experience in the past to the morden or future society.

In conclution, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the author should provide more evidence which can really support the assumption that the increased property values is due to the restrictions. To better assess the argument I would also need to know the exact situation in DA.

基本上挑不出什么毛病了，现在最主要还是时间问题，加油。还有，我们以后改了作文之后，能不能再回贴讨论或者反馈一下意见？