argument2 【0706G－MYTH-II小组】第6次作业 by annlysea

annlyseaUID: 2219320

argument2 【0706G－MYTH-II小组】第6次作业 by annlysea

题目Argument 2 "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."

字数 628字 日期3-17

In this argument, by providing some facts and some analyses, the arguer avers that there is the relationship between the increase of economic value and the exterior of the homes. Although, at the first glance, it is cogent, closer examination will expose a set of defeats which conceal in this argument above.

First of all, the arguer indicates that property values on average in B which is due to a set of restrictions on how to landscape the community’s yards and what colors to paint on the exteriors of homes enhance seven years ago. Admittedly, I concede that the two methods of B community can increase the financial value of homes and they are suitable and aesthetic perspectives. But the arguer rules out another possibility which is also in favor of bringing the additional values of homes, what is more, and even more than those ways that is mentioned above in the argument. Perhaps the environment around the community is improved, such as life environment, educational environment, traffic environment and so forth. People find it is agreeable in B community that the society is more secure than before, individual gains more opportunities to entrance the schools or academies to learn much more useful knowledge. In addition, communication becomes smooth when they are driving home. Because these possibilities lead to the advance of values of home in B community, people prefer to collect this area to live. In my view, the arguer provides no cogent evidence to demonstrate that the having tripled of average property values of B is because of the restrictions that arguer mentioned.

Secondly, it is granted that arguer’s assumption is correct that the restrictions arguer mentioned will result in the increase of B's values on average. Yet can we assure they are feasible in DA? Obviously, the answer is no. Maybe because of another factors that arguer do not realize brings the low price of home in DA. For instance, perhaps the appearance of the homes in DA community is superior to that of B. But given the differences of these sections of both, in fact the value of home in DA is low such as, without the complete public facilities or the comfortable climate. Therefore, arguer commits the false analogy. Lacking the effective information about the current situation of DA, the arguer cannot rashly allege that if DA administers the restrictions on landscaping and house painting, the value of DA will develop.

Finally, but is not the last one, arguer advises these restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, but it is not mentioned in the argument whether it will be received by the homeowners in DA. Perhaps majority of the homeowners in DA are poor, they have no capacity to offer the fee of landscaping and housepainting. Or perhaps traditional stytle of homes in DA is popular, the homeowners have no enough insteresing to alter it. That means there is no support of homeowners, the restrictions will not be administered in DA successfully.

In summary, there are no convincing evidences, arguer can not present that they are feasible ways to enhance the econimic value of home in DA. To better support his view, aruger should supple more details about the homes both in Brookville community and Deerhaven Acres. For example, the environment around the BC and DA or the reflection that is about these restrictions if they desire the restrictions of homeowners.

这篇写的有点多，大家凑乎给批下吧~

[ 本帖最后由 annlysea 于 2007-3-17 22:41 编辑 ]

karatexUID: 2220963

In this argument, by providing some facts and analyses, the arguer avers that there is a relationship between the increase of economic value and the exterior of the homes. Although, at the first glance, it is cogent, closer examination will expose a set of defeats which is concealed in this argument above.

First of all, the arguer indicates that property values on average in B(缩写前面要注明) due to a set of restrictions on how to landscape the community’s yards and what colors to paint on the exteriors of homes ascend seven years ago. Admittedly, I concede that the two methods of B community can increase the financial value of homes and [they are suitable and aesthetic perspectives].(they are aesthetic ...是不是有点问题) But the arguer fails to rule out another possibility which is also in favor of bringing the additional values of homes. What is more, and even more than those ways that is mentioned above in the argument. Perhaps the environment around the community is improved, such as life environment, educational environment, traffic environment and so forth. People find it agreeable in B community that the society is more secure than before, individual gains more opportunities to enter the schools or academies to learn much more useful knowledge(这里貌似铺得有点太开了，反例点到为止比较好). In addition, traffic becomes smooth when they are driving home. Because these possibilities lead to the advance of values of home in B community, people prefer this area to live. In my view, the arguer provides no cogent evidence to demonstrate that the average property values tripled in B is because of the restrictions that arguer mentioned.

Secondly, it is granted (第二层是递进，是不是该用even if)that arguer’s assumption is correct that the restrictions arguer mentioned will result in the increase of B's values on average. Yet can we assure they are feasible in DA? Obviously, the answer is no. Maybe other factors which arguer does not realize pose for the low price of home in DA. [For instance, the appearance of the homes in DA community is superior to that of B. But given the differences of these sections of both, in fact the value of home in DA is low such as, without the complete public facilities or the comfortable climate.] (这一段有点模糊，能不能用稍微简洁一点的方式)Therefore, arguer commits the false analogy. Lacking the effective information about the current situation of DA, the arguer cannot rashly allege that if DA administers the restrictions on landscaping and house painting, the value of DA will develop.

Finally, but is not the last one,(Last but not the least,用典型说法可以吗) arguer advises these restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, but he does not mention in the argument whether it(这里it指代不够明确，改advocacy) will be received by the homeowners in DA. Perhaps majority of the homeowners in DA are poor, they have no capacity to offer the fee of landscaping and housepainting. Or perhaps traditional style of homes in DA is popular, the homeowners would not be willing to change the style. Receiving no  support from homeowners, the restrictions would have no chance to be successfully administered in DA .

In summary, without convincing evidences, arguer can not present that they(they依然指代不明，或者用advocacy，或者再次简单地概括一下两个建议，这样比较好吧) are feasible ways to enhance the econimic value of home in DA. To better support his view, the arguer should supply more details about the homes both in Brookville community and Deerhaven Acres. For example, the environment around the BC and DA or the feedbacks from homeowners about whether they prefer the restrictions in landscaping and housepainting or not.

个人意见，仅供参考。
1。总体上语言还是不错的，细节上我已经给出了参考意见，可以比对你原来的文章。
2。字数稍微偏多一点，如果能够按时写成当然没有问题，但是如果超时的，那请将一些冗余的话进行缩减或者删节，比如作者的什么什么观点是不对的或者作者认为。。。因为据称comments会把这些判为general statement，也就是没有信息量的文字，所以有时间还是尽力在攻击点上多铺开。
3。由于是新人，对于你的努力工作表示鼓励，加油！跟上大家的进度！

annlyseaUID: 2219320

谢谢 我会努力的
我去修改一下