argument2 留链互拍

velmawhiteUID: 2394088

题目：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."
字数：566                          日期：2008-1-18

提纲：
1错误建立两者之间的关系1没有考虑时间因素7年的时间可以改变很多 不一定是统一外观引起的 通货膨胀，工业发展，2即使7年之间这些因素没有改变，也不是必要条件。只是简单的认为时间原因 使得两者有联系。

2两地的差异 教育水平 和 新政策新工厂

In this argument, the author suggests that the the Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support his suggestion, the author points out that since homeowners in Brookville community adopt a set of restrictions on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted 7 years ago, the average property values have tripled in Brookville. In addition, he assumes that by these restrictions the property values in Deerhaven Acres will be raised. It seems logical, but after careful scrutiny, it is full of flaws.

To begin with, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the fact that to adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting and to raise the property values in Brookville. On one hand, it is assumes without the justification the background conditions have remained the same at different times. During 7 years there must be a lot of changes in Brookville community. The incomes of people may increase, and a inflation may happen at that time, the need of industrial land and homes may increase. Actually, those factors probably contribute to a increase of the property values. Without ruling out of those factors the author can not believe the restrictions can cause a rise of property values. On the other hand, even if there were few changes in Brookville during 7 years, to adopt some restrictions was not necessary to raise the property values. It assumes that just because the raise followed the restriction, then the restriction caused the raise. There is no evidence to support this. Perhaps it is just a preference of the local people and it did not influence the price. It is based on oversimplified analysis of the cause and the presumptuous correlation accordingly unacceptable.

Even if the restriction can make the price increasing, the author committed the fallacy of faulty analogy. Based on the situation of Brookville community is analogous to the Deerhaven's in all respects, it may be work well to adopt a series of restriction. But the author loses sight of fact that they are not similar at all to some extent. For example, may be the landscaping and the painting outside of homes are better than the condition of the Brookville's before the adoption. If so, question whether those restrictions can cause a rise of property values. In addition, doubt whether the public service are similar. It is perhaps that the public education is developed very well, and thus parents want to choose to live in Brookville for their children’s education. And it also perhaps that the industry needs more labor force. There is some new strategy to call attention of some factor to invest in Brookville and thus more people from other place have to live in Brookville as well. Without ruling out all of the differences between the two communities the author can not justify the analogy deduction.

All in all, the author fails to believe that to adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and painting can contribute to the rise of the property values in Deerhaven. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence that the condition between Deerhaven and Brookville are similar enough. To better evaluate the argument we would need more information about whether the homers in Deerhaven want to change their homes' outlook.

bryanshawUID: 2239455

In this argument, the author suggests that the the Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support his suggestion, the author points out that since homeowners in Brookville community adopt a set of restrictions on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted 7 years ago, the average property values have tripled in Brookville. In addition, he assumes that by these restrictions the property values in Deerhaven Acres will be raised. It seems logical, but after careful scrutiny, it is full of flaws. 显然，开头段有点长，而且很像北美范文的模式，这对得高分不利。扼要一些比较好

To begin with, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the fact that to adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting and to raise the property values in Brookville. On one hand, it is assumes 语法without the justification the background conditions have remained the same at different times.这句话好别扭啊 During 7 years there must be a lot of changes in Brookville community. The incomes of people may increase, and a inflation may happen at that time, the need of industrial land and homes may increase. Actually, those factors probably contribute to a increase of the property values. Without ruling out of those factors the author can not believe the restrictions can cause a rise of property values. On the other hand, even if there were have been few changes in Brookville during the past 7 years, to adopt some restrictions was not necessary to raise the property values. It assumes that just because  the raise followed the restriction, then the restriction caused the raise. 不通顺 There is no evidence to support this. Perhaps it is just a preference of the local people and it did not influence the price. It is based on oversimplified analysis of the cause and the presumptuous correlation accordingly unacceptable.

Even if the restriction can make the price increasing, the author committed the fallacy of faulty analogy. Based on the situation of Brookville community is analogous to the Deerhaven's in all respects, it may be work well to adopt a series of restriction. But the author loses sight of fact that they are not similar at all to some extent. For example, may be the landscaping and the painting outside of homes are better than the condition of the Brookville's before the adoption. If so, question whether those restrictions can cause a rise of property values. In addition, doubt whether the public service are similar. It is perhaps that the public education is developed very well, and thus parents want to choose to live in Brookville for their children’s education. And it also perhaps that the industry needs more labor force. There is some new strategy to call attention of some factor to invest in Brookville and thus more people from other place have to live in Brookville as well. Without ruling out all of the differences between the two communities the author can not justify the analogy deduction. 中间两段显得很拥挤，不妨拆成三段，层层让步来得舒服，你既然有三个even if ,就写三段好了。第一段说理过多，第二段重复描述问题过多，分三段就可以很好解决你字数分配不均匀的问题

All in all, the author fails to believe that to adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and painting can contribute to the rise of the property values in Deerhaven. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence that the condition between Deerhaven and Brookville are similar enough. To better evaluate the argument we would need more information about whether the homers in Deerhaven want to change their homes' outlook. 结尾也显得长了。。。


这篇ARGUMENT逻辑错误还可以攻击，7年前的规则可能已经不适用了，即使遵守了也不行了；