argument2 有拍必回

yanhuangbabyUID: 178305

2.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 house painting."

In the author’s statement ,he asserts that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their new set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise the property values. To better support his conclusion, the author cited Brookville which adopted restriction on the landscape and color of the house in the communities as an example.As it stands, the argument suffer from several flaws as follows.

First of all, the author failed to establish the causal relationship that adopting a set of restriction of on landscaping and house painting is the only reason for the raise of the property value in Brookville. Possibly that there are alternative reason which contribute to the raise of property values. Maybe the Brookville is located in an advantageous geographical position which make the house in the community a beneficial property to invest on. For this merit’s sake, more people trend to buy house in the Brookville. It’s also possible that large amount of people immigrant to Brookville, which increase the need of house with a developing population. What’s more, the economic factors exert great influence on the value of property.

Another problem existed in the author’s conclusion is that he commits the fallacy of “all things are the same”. Although Deerhaven Acres is located nearby Brookville, many dissimilarities are remain. The argument, thus, relying on the assumption that Deerhaven Acres is analogous to Brookville in all aspects, is so weak. It is, for example, possible that citizens in Deerhaven Acres don’t appreciate the practice of adopting restriction on landscaping and house painting that they move to another city. It also possible that the diverse conditions of houses in Deerhaven Acres lower the possibility of adopting a set on restrictions. What’s more, the fact that happened seven years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and house painting would work in today’s situation . Without more backgrounds conditions of the two city , the author can’t convince us that the restriction will effectively raise the property value in DA.

Finally, the author hasty generalized that restrict the landscaping and house painting is the only way to develop the property business in DA .It’s  highly possible others factors may have contributed to the low values of the property . For instance, the styles of house in DA are uniformed and dull, which fail to draw the attention of the citizens who strongly  emphasize diversity and personal creativity on their house .Instead of raising the values of house, the property business maybe even worst if DA take this practice of B .In addition, media and promotion also play important part on the sales of house. Common sense tell us  that the potential customer would fail to notify the house if there are not abundant information about the property in the medias .  

To sum up , the argument is not persuasive as it stands .to make it more convincing , the argument need to provided more evidence to rule out other possible cause of the raise of property values in B. To better evaluate the argument, we need information regarding the background condition of houses in DA.

词汇比较简单:L，请各位多指点，感激不尽。

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-3-10 09:55 编辑 ]

drugkingUID: 204967

你下面那首歌我会唱，在情深深雨朦朦里听赵薇唱的，很好听的

rose_wangyuanUID: 202907

In the author’s statement ,he asserts that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their new set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise the property values. To better support his conclusion, the author cited Brookville which adopted restriction(s) on the landscape and color of the house in the communities as an example.As it stands, the argument suffer from several flaws as follows.

First of all, the author failed to establish the causal relationship that adopting a set of restriction of on landscaping and house painting is the only reason for the raise of the property value in Brookville. Possibly(语法错误,  要么用It is possible that) that there are alternative reason which contribute to the raise of property values. Maybe the Brookville is located in an advantageous geographical position which make the house in the community a beneficial property(beneficial properties) to invest on. For this merit’s sake, more people trend to buy house in the Brookville. It’s also possible that large amount of people immigrant(immigrate) to Brookville, which increase the need of house with a developing population. What’s more, the economic factors exert great influence on the value of property.(最后一点不错)

Another problem existed in the author’s conclusion is that he commits the fallacy of “all things are the same”. Although Deerhaven Acres is located nearby Brookville, many dissimilarities are remain. The argument, thus, relying on the assumption that Deerhaven Acres is analogous to Brookville in all aspects, is so weak. It is, for example, possible that citizens in Deerhaven Acres don’t appreciate the practice of adopting restriction(s) on landscaping and house painting that they move to another city. It (is) also possible that the diverse conditions of houses in Deerhaven Acres lower the possibility of adopting a set on restrictions. What’s more, the fact that happened seven years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and house painting would work in today’s situation . Without more backgrounds conditions of the two city , the author can’t convince us that the restriction will effectively raise the property value in DA.

Finally, the author hasty(hastily) generalized that restrict the landscaping and house painting is the only way to develop the property business in DA .It’s  highly possible others factors may have contributed to the low values of the property . For instance, the styles of house in DA are uniformed and dull, which fail to draw the attention of the citizens who strongly  emphasize diversity and personal creativity on their house .Instead of raising the values of house, the property business maybe even worst(worse) if DA take this practice of B .In addition, media and promotion also play important part on the sales of house. Common sense tell us  that the potential customer would fail to notify the house if there are not abundant information about the property in the medias .(你有没有觉得论证段的第一和第三段有部分重复？或者说不是重复，但表达的是同一个意思，就是说restrictions不是唯一的能提高房价的办法？对于两个fallacy之间的区别最好再明确一点，攻一点是一点）  

To sum up , the argument is not persuasive as it stands .to make it more convincing , the argument need to provided more evidence to rule out other possible（possibilities which） cause of（of 去掉） the raise of property values in B. To better evaluate the argument, we need information regarding the background condition of houses in DA.

Remarks: Good despite of some small flaws in grammar. Be careful with that.
             Pay attention the logical correlation between the author's fallcaies.

hepengmcUID: 203123

argument2 有拍必回

2.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 house painting."

In the author’s statement ,he asserts that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their new set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise the property values. To better support his conclusion, the author cited Brookville which adopted restriction on the landscape and （on）color of the house in the communities as an example.（这句话用的不是很好。最好是要突出它实行了这个政策之后，价值上去了）As it stands, the argument suffer from several flaws as follows.

First of all, the author failed to establish the causal relationship that adopting a set of restriction of on landscaping and house painting is the only reason for the raise of the property value in Brookvil. Possibly that there are alternative reason which contribute to the raise of property values.( Possibly后面最好开始举例子了，这个句子结构改一下，这样比较繁琐) Maybe the Brookville is located in an advantageous（这个词不是很准确） geographical position which make the house in the community a beneficial property to invest on（应该是被动结构吧）. For this merit’s sake,（不地道的用法） more people trend to buy house in the（多余） Brookville. It’s also possible that large amount of people immigrant to Brookville, which increase the need of house with a developing population （with a developing population重复）. What’s more, the economic factors exert great influence on the value of property.（论据发展的不是很深入，并且衔接上也不是很紧密）

Another problem existed in the author’s conclusion is that he commits the fallacy of “all things are the same”. （致命错误，all things are equal是对同一个地方而言的，如果文章收说得全部是DA，才有可能是all things are equa，这里的逻辑错误应该是false analogy. 或者 after this, then because of this之内的错误）Although Deerhaven Acres is located nearby Brookville, many dissimilarities are remain. The argument, thus, relying on the assumption that Deerhaven Acres is analogous to Brookville in all aspects, is so weak. It is, for example, possible that citizens in Deerhaven Acres don’t appreciate the practice of adopting restriction on landscaping and house painting that they move to another city. It also possible that the diverse conditions of houses in Deerhaven Acres lower the possibility of adopting a set on restrictions. What’s more, the fact that happened seven years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and house painting would work in today’s situation . Without more backgrounds conditions of the two city , the author can’t convince us that the restriction will effectively raise the property value in DA. （这一段攻击的逻辑错误很混乱）

Finally, the author hasty generalized that restrict the landscaping and house painting is the only way to develop the property business in DA （这个错误不是hasty generalized，这个错误是认为某原因是某结果成立的充分/必要条件）.It’s  highly possible others factors may have contributed to the low values of the property . For instance, the styles of house in DA are uniformed and dull, which fail to draw the attention of the citizens who strongly  emphasize diversity and personal creativity on their house .Instead of raising the values of house, the property business maybe even worst if DA take this practice of B .In addition, media and promotion also play important part on the sales of house. Common sense tell us  that the potential customer would fail to notify the house if there are not abundant information about the property in the medias .  

To sum up , the argument is not persuasive as it stands .to make it more convincing , the argument need to provided more evidence to rule out other possible cause of the raise of property values in B. To better evaluate the argument, we need information regarding the background condition of houses in DA.
我用力砸了，不要介意哈！
文章患了几个致命的错误，就是逻辑错误的定位没有找准确，如果在没有十分的把握的情况下，最好不要明说作者患了什么逻辑错误。在考试上一旦说错了，就废了。另外语言以及讨论的深度上希望能更进一步。逻辑的攻击点还是找准确了。

词汇比较简单 ，请各位多指点，感激不尽。

GracielinUID: 2155155

In the author’s statement ,he asserts that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their new set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise the property values. To better support his conclusion, the author cited Brookville which adopted restriction on the landscape and color of the house in the communities as an example.As it stands, the argument suffer from several flaws as follows.

First of all, the author failed to establish the causal relationship that adopting a set of restriction of on landscaping and house painting is the only reason for the raise of the property value in Brookville. Possibly that there are alternative reason(s) which contribute to the raise of property values. Maybe the Brookville is located in an advantageous geographical position which make(s) the house in the community a beneficial property to invest on. For this merit’s sake, more people trend to buy house in the Brookville. It’s also possible that large amount of people immigrant to Brookville, which increase the need of house with a developing population. What’s more, the economic factors exert great influence on the value of property.(个人认为应该先说规定是否对B升值有影响，再说即使有，是否是唯一的影响因素。)

Another problem existed in the author’s conclusion is that he commits the fallacy of “all things are the same”.（all things are the same不是很懂） Although Deerhaven Acres is located nearby Brookville, many dissimilarities are remain(much dissimilarity remains). The argument, thus, relying on the assumption that Deerhaven Acres is analogous to Brookville in all aspects, is so weak. It is, for example, possible that citizens in Deerhaven Acres don’t appreciate the practice of adopting restriction on landscaping and house painting that they move to another city. It(is) also possible that the diverse conditions of houses in Deerhaven Acres lower the possibility of adopting a set on restrictions. What’s more, the fact that happened seven years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and house painting would work in today’s situation(改成work today) . Without more backgrounds conditions of the two city(cities) , the author can’t convince us that the restriction will effectively raise the property value in DA.

Finally, the author hasty generalized that restrict the landscaping and house painting is the only way to develop the property business in DA .It’s  highly possible others(other) factors may have contributed to the low values of the property . For instance, the styles of house in DA are uniformed and dull, which fail to draw the attention of the citizens who strongly  emphasize diversity and personal creativity on their house .Instead of raising the values of house,(这句不是很明白) the property business maybe even worst if DA take this practice of B .In addition, media and promotion also play important part on the sales of house. Common sense tell us  that the potential customer would fail to notify the house if there are not abundant information about the property in the medias . （感觉这段写得比较好，论据比较丰富。但是和第一个攻击段说得有点重复）

To sum up , the argument is not persuasive as it stands .to make it more convincing , the argument need to provided（provide） more evidence to rule out other possible cause of the raise of property values in B. To better evaluate the argument, we need information regarding the background condition of houses in DA.
p.s:语法错误似乎多了点


https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1
偶的argument17 请指点

kgin23UID: 2183064

In the author’s statement, he asserts that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their new set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise the property values. To better support his conclusion, the author cited Brookville which adopted restriction on the landscape and color of the house in the communities as an example. As it stands, the argument suffer (suffers) from several flaws as follows.

First of all, the author failed to establish the causal relationship that adopting a set of restriction of on landscaping and house painting is the only reason for the raise of the property value in Brookville. Possibly that(去掉that) there are alternative reason (reasons) which contribute to the raise of property values. Maybe the Brookville is located in an advantageous geographical position which make (makes) the house in the community a beneficial property to invest on. For this merit’s sake, more people trend to buy house in the Brookville. It’s also possible that large amount of people immigrant (immigrate) to Brookville, which increase the need of house with a developing population. What’s more, the economic factors (加个may 会不会更好)exert great influence on the value of property.

Another problem existed in the author’s conclusion is that he commits the fallacy of “all things are the same”. Although Deerhaven Acres is located nearby Brookville, many dissimilarities are remain(remaining). The argument, thus, relying on the assumption that Deerhaven Acres is analogous to Brookville in all aspects, is so weak. It is, for example, possible that （Maybe,这样显得句子更多样化吧，全文用it is possible … that … 的句型仿佛比较多）citizens in Deerhaven Acres don’t （won’t 因为是还没有发生的事，将来时态可能比较好些） appreciate the practice of adopting restriction on landscaping and house painting that（因为是随之发生的事情所以可以改成and 之类的） they move to another city. It （is） also possible that the diverse conditions of houses in Deerhaven Acres lower the possibility of adopting a set on restrictions. What’s more, the fact that happened seven years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and house painting would work in today’s situation. Without more backgrounds conditions of the two city, the author can’t convince us that the restriction will effectively raise the property value in DA.

Finally, the author (too) hasty generalized (to generalize) that restrict the landscaping and house painting is the only way to develop the property business in DA .It’s highly possible others factors may have contributed to the low values of the property. For instance, the styles of house in DA are uniformed and dull, which fail to draw the attention of the citizens who strongly emphasize diversity and personal creativity on their house .Instead of raising the values of house, the property business maybe even worst (worse) if DA take this practice of B .In addition, media and promotion also play important part on the sales of house. Common sense tell(tells) us that the potential customer would fail to notify the house if there are not abundant information about the property in the medias.  

To sum up , the argument is not persuasive as it stands .to make it more convincing , the argument need to provided more evidence to rule out other possible cause of the raise of property values in B. To better evaluate the argument, we need information regarding the background condition of houses in DA.

结构啊逻辑什么的楼上的都说过了哈:)我把主要的语法错误帮你改了下,还有就是句型什么的最好多一点变化,相似的句型做一点小改动就会很好了哈

感觉有许多地方还是写得很不错的,逻辑攻击点也找得比较准.

tonygumpUID: 201035

2.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 house painting."

In the author’s statement ,he asserts that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their new set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting  in order to raise the property values. To better support his conclusion, the author cited Brookville which adopted restriction on
the landscape and color of the house in the communities as an example.As it stands, the argument suffer from several flaws as follows. [好像imong不是很赞同这样的开头，罗嗦了点，他的意见是不要罗列论据]

First of all, the author failed to establish the causal relationship that adopting a set of restriction of on landscaping and house painting is the only reason for the raise of the property value in Brookville. Possibly[语法不太对] that there are alternative reason[复数] which contribute to the raise of property values. Maybe the Brookville is located in an advantageous geographical position which make the house in the community a beneficial property to invest on. [感觉这个理由不太好。首先，作者说两个地方是Nearby,所以如果从地形来分析不太有说服力，其次,它在这七年有了增长，但是地形地势确是与生俱来的，所以.....]For this merit’s sake, more people trend to buy house in the Brookville. It’s also possible that large amount of people immigrant to Brookville, which increase the need of house with a developing population. What’s more, the economic factors exert great influence on the value of property.[三个理由，很充分，第一个可以改成交通的发展]

Another problem existed in the author’s conclusion is that he commits the fallacy of “all things are the same”. [直接说他错在什么什么好像不是太好，可以婉转一些，个人意见~~~]Although Deerhaven Acres is located nearby Brookville, many dissimilarities are remain. The argument, thus, relying on the assumption that Deerhaven Acres is analogous to Brookville in all aspects, is so weak. It is, for example[在这个句型里用插入语不太好吧], possible that citizens in Deerhaven Acres don’t appreciate the practice of adopting restriction on landscaping and house painting that they move to another city. It also possible that the diverse conditions of houses in Deerhaven Acres lower the possibility of adopting a set on restrictions. What’s more, the fact that happened seven years ago is not a sound evidence to draw a conclusion that adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and house painting would work in today’s situation . Without more backgrounds conditions of the two city , the author can’t convince us that the restriction will effectively raise the property value in DA.
[这一段提到了两个错误，不错。但是写在一起有点混乱。分开来吧。。。可以选其一放到最后一段，反正最后也有点重复了~~]
Finally, the author hasty generalized that restrict the landscaping and house painting is the only way to develop the property business in DA .It’s  highly possible [that]others factors may have contributed to the low values of the property . For instance, the styles of house in DA are uniformed and dull, which fail to draw the attention of the citizens who strongly  emphasize diversity and personal creativity on their house .Instead of raising the values of house, the property business maybe even worst if DA take this practice of B .In addition, media and promotion also play important part on the sales of house. Common sense tell us  that the potential customer would fail to notify the house if there are not abundant information about the property in the medias .  
[有点重复。推荐还有其他错误：例如强制性措施可能影响人民的情绪]
To sum up , the argument is not persuasive as it stands .[T]to make it more convincing , the argument need to[be] provided more evidence to rule out other possible cause of the raise of property values in B. To better evaluate the argument, we need information regarding the background condition of houses in DA

总的来说不错，因为我是新手所以也没有什么经验。
不知道对地名的简单缩写好不好啊？感觉用全称好一点
大家一起加油哈哈。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D102
我也写了一下。。。给点意见Hoho。。。

[ 本帖最后由 tonygump 于 2006-3-12 01:14 编辑 ]

japumingUID: 2150677

明天去考 今天正好写了这篇 (第一次贴)

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: 348          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-4-3

In this article, the speak consider that the restrictions about the landscaping and homes' coloer, which is set for  the homeowners in nearby Brookvile (BK) community, made the average property values triple. To achieve the same purpose, rising the average property values in Deerhaven Acres (DA), we should do the same restriction to our own homeowner. I found several logical mistake here and can't agree the speaker's suggestion.

First, the evidence the speaker provided is seven years old. It is too old. There may be many change between these seven years. The speaker couldn's rule out the possibility that, in modern world, people no longer like the same thing like the people do seven years ago. They may dislike the yards landscoped, because in their sense, it would make it space see liminted. And there also is the possibility that now people never painter the home, and they feel the original of the woods seems better that the paint, also because the paint contain several chamical thing which would damger people's health.

Secondly,  the speaker said that after the set of restriction, the average property values have tripled. But the speaker didn't provide us any evidence to show these are direct connectionthese between these two thing. Maybe there are other reasons. For example, seven years age, there was an infliction in the city. And all the thing's price rised. To this phenomena, the speaker considered the values of the property have tripled.

Thirdly, there are many difference between BK and DA. The thing which make good effect in BK may take an opposite effect in DA. The people in these two cities may have the opposite opinions. If the DA's people hate the painted home, the set of restrictions would be rejected.

In sum, I could's agree with the speaker's conclusion. To strengthen his contention, more evidences are needed. The speaker must prived true evidence that the set of restrictions was the direct reason for property value's rising. And also show the today situation in these section, like what the buyyers think, and whether they like home painted.