Argument2 【加州阳光】第一次作业 stone 请猛拍

stone_lueUID: 2154056

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."
提纲：1. The case cited happened seven years ago, so it’s obsolete to justify today’s things.
      2. The case cited happened in different places, the locations have significant influence on the property values.
      3. People no longer like the house with the same yard and color.

In this letter, the committee of homeowners concludes that the average property values in Brookville have tripled for the reason of the adoption of a set of restrictions. To justify this conclusion the committee notes that the community has the same yard and color of exteriors of homes. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.
    To begin with, the example cited by committee happened seven years ago. It is entirely possible that the average property values have changed rapidly. Everyone knows the fact that the real estate values can change in a large scale frequently. Such as the events happened in Tokyo, Hong Kong and many other locations. Accordingly, the committee can not use the case happened seven years ago to illustrate us that we can get the same return if we follow the set of restriction.
    Secondly, the committee use the case happened in Brookville to illuminates us that his conclusion is convinced. However, this sounds a little ridiculous. We know that the location has significant influence on the price of real estate. There must be a huge difference in price between the properties in Manhattan and those in a remote village. The committee incorrectly utilize example happened in different place to debate the relevant case, but cannot cite any sound recommendations.
    Finally, the committee falsely thinks that the tastes of people haven't changed. Perhaps seven years ago, people like the house with the same yard and color of the exteriors of homes. However, time has changed. Nowadays, people pursue characteristic, everyone want to be different with others. So the house with same yard and color will no longer attract people's attention any more. On the contrary, people may be more willing to buy houses with different yard and color. If that, this letter really is a bad recommendation.
   In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the committee must modify the idea or provide better evidence that their recommendation will help homeowners get more return.

盈盈飞飞UID: 2217743

提纲：1. The case cited happened seven years ago, so it’s obsolete to justify today’s things.
      2. The case cited happened in different places, the locations have significant influence on the property values.
      3. People no longer like the house with the same yard and color.

In this letter, the committee of homeowners concludes that the average property values in Brookville have tripled for the reason of the adoption of a set of restrictions. To justify this conclusion the committee notes that the community has the same yard and color of exteriors of homes. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.(开头对文章的总结不错)
To begin with, the example evidence cited by committee happened seven years ago. It is entirely possible that the average property values have changed rapidly. Everyone knows the fact that the real estate values can change in a large scale frequently. Such as the events happened in Tokyo, Hong Kong and many other locations.这个论据没有展开，论据一定要很细致的展开，批驳要到位 Accordingly, the committee can not use the case happened seven years ago to illustrate us that we can get the same return if we follow the set of restriction.

    Secondly, the committee use the case happened in Brookville to illuminates us that his conclusion is convinced. However, this sounds a little ridiculous. We know that the location has significant influence on the price of real estate. There must be a huge difference in price between the properties in Manhattan and those in a remote village. The committee incorrectly utilize example happened in different place to debate the relevant case, but cannot cite any sound recommendations.这一段也是没有很详细的论据，只是批驳一下是不够的，要仔细分析可能的情况
    Finally, the committee falsely thinks that the tastes of people haven't changed. Perhaps seven years ago, people like the house with the same yard and color of the exteriors of homes. However, time has changed.这句话重复 Nowadays, people pursue characteristic, everyone want to be different with others. So the house with same yard and color will no longer attract people's attention any more. On the contrary, people may be more willing to buy houses with different yard and color. If that, this letter really is a bad recommendation.

   In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the committee must modify the idea or provide better evidence that their recommendation will help homeowners get more return.
Lz进步很明显的说
语言进步很多
我觉得你可以在分析一下错误的批驳顺序，比方说我认为最根本的错误是统一的做法不一定是高价的直接原因，没有了这个关系，文章的其他证明都是没有用的，然后是证据的有效性问题(时差，地域原因

sandyfriendUID: 157486

In this letter, the committee of homeowners concludes that the average property values in Brookville have tripled for the reason of the adoption of a set of restrictions. To justify this conclusion the committee notes that the community has the same yard and color of exteriors of homes. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.
    To begin with, the example cited by committee happened seven years ago. It is entirely possible that the average property values have changed rapidly. Everyone knows the fact that the real estate values can change frequently [放到前边来更好？]in a large scale . Such as the events happened in Tokyo, Hong Kong and many other locations. Accordingly, the committee can not use the case happened seven years ago to illustrate us that we can get the same return if we follow the set of restrictions.
    Secondly, the committee use the case happened in Brookville to illuminates us that his conclusion is convinced. However, this sounds a little ridiculous. We know that the location has significant influence on the price of real estate. There must be a huge difference in price between the properties in Manhattan and those in a remote village. The committee incorrectly utilize example happened in different place to debate the relevant case, but cannot cite any sound recommendations.
    Finally, the committee falsely thinks that the tastes of people haven't changed. Perhaps seven years ago, people like the house with the same yard and color of the exteriors of homes. However, time has changed. Nowadays, people pursue characteristic, everyone want to be different with others. So the house with same yard and color will no longer attract people's attention any more. On the contrary, people may be more willing to buy houses with different yard and color. If that, this letter really is a bad recommendation.
   In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the committee must modify the idea or provide better evidence that their recommendation will help homeowners get more return.

不错啊，语言写的好啊。
逻辑上好像不够深入，如果由重到轻，先说location, laoction不同后边都不用说了。
再说时间上，无法比较，最后说人们喜好的变化。