argument2 有拍必回！(1 2 3 4 5 6 .. 9999)

looflirpaUID: 204752

TOPIC: ARGUMENT 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 housepainting."

翻译：
七年前，临近的Brookville社区的房屋业主采纳了一系列的限制措施来规范该社区的院子该如何来美化以及房屋的外墙该漆上什么颜色。从那时起，Brookville的地产均价翻了三番。为了提高Deerhaven Acres的地产价格，我们应该建立起一套自己的规范美化和上漆的限制措施。

提纲：
翻番与限制措施没有直接联系。也许是其他原因，比如附近新建了大学，改善了交通，经济发展，甚至通货膨胀。这些因素应排除
7年前不代表以后。时间会引起很多变化，比如对房子的喜好。可能由侧重环境、外观变得更为实用、智能等
D与B无可比性。比如两地原先的美好程度不同。原来就差与原来就好，上升空间不同。另外，两地人们的喜好可能不同。

WORDS: 417          TIME: 0:54:37          DATE: 2006-3-9

-修改稿-
The argument is not cogent because it assumes that occurrence one after another implies causation, which is not necessarily the case. Further, no evidence could demonstrate the author's assumption that what happened seven years ago or in Brookville will take place in Deerhaven too.

In the first place, the author fails to demonstrate that the sharp rise in average property values of Brookville was result from the adoption of a set of restrictions on landscaping and exteriors painting. It is entirely possible that the raising of value due to other reasons instead of restrictions as the author presented above. For example, many things could changed in Brookville in the past seven years, such as improvements of transportation, instruction of a new university, even a long-term inflation, that would possibly lead to the boost of property values. In short, without evidence that all other conditions that might affect the property values have remained unchanged, the author's assumption that the restriction is responsible for the higher value is questionable at best.

Even if the restriction of landscaping and painting could serve to the raise of property value during the last seven years, it might not the case in the future. In such a long time, many conditions such as evaluate standard for property values may have changed. It is possible that people in the past think a lot of the exterior of the house in community but now pay more attention to the function of the houses. If so, people would like to invest in houses with high-tech furniture rather than nothing but looks good. Thereby, the restriction of landscaping in Deerhaven might not result in the raise of property values as it done in Brookville.

In addition, even if the restriction of landscaping and painting could serve to the raise of property value in Brookville, it is not necessarily the case in Deerhaven. The author did not compare the two areas and failed to consider the differences between them, by which it is possible that the same measure might take dissimilar effects in the two cities. Fox example, if original property values in Brookville are low, it would be easy to raise no matter what measure was implemented. But for Deerhaven, may be its property values are already very high and difficult to raise. Thus the measure that is valuable in Brookville may be of no use in Deerhaven.

In sum, the author should provide more information to preclude other conditions that may influence the property values. Further, it would be convincing that more evidence be provided to demonstrate the experience in the past and in another city could be used in Deerhaven.

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-3-11 00:19 编辑 ]

looflirpaUID: 204752

写了好几篇argument，没被拍过，改下标题，顶一下，等拍！
谢谢

dunanUID: 2117260

The argument is not cogent because it assumes that occurrence one after another implies causation, which is not necessarily the case. Further, no evidence could demonstrate the author's assumption that what happened seven years ago or in Brookville will take place in Deerhaven too.

In the first place, the author fails to demonstrate that the sharp rise in average property values of Brookville was result from the adoption of a set of restrictions on landscaping and exteriors painting. It is entirely possible that the raising of value due to other reasons instead of restrictions as the author presented above. For example, many things could changed in Brookville in the past seven years, such as improvements of transportation, instruction of a new university, even a long-term inflation, that would possibly lead to the boost of property values.［Such factor may include improvements of transportation, instruction of a new university, even a long-term inflation, that would possibly lead to the boost of property values.这样写好象更好］In short, without evidence that all other conditions that might affect the property values have remained unchanged, the author's assumption that the restriction is responsible for the higher value is questionable at best.(感觉这一段里面列出来的其他原因应该更充分的论述下，一笔带过太可惜了，结果感觉段落虽然很长，但都是套话， 呵呵偶的作文也是，凑字数了)

Even if the restriction of landscaping and painting could serve to the raise of property value during the last seven years, it might not（be） the case in the future. In such a long time, many conditions such as evaluate standard for property values may have changed. It is possible that people in the past think a lot of［are more likely to first take into account］ the exterior of the house in community but now pay more attention to the function of the houses. If so, people would like to invest in houses with high-tech furniture rather than nothing but looks good(什么意思啊？). Thereby, the restriction of landscaping in Deerhaven might not result in the raise of property values as it done in Brookville.

In addition, even if the restriction of landscaping and painting could serve to the raise of property value in Brookville, it is not necessarily the case in Deerhaven. The author did not compare the two areas and failed to consider the differences between them, by which it is possible that the same measure might take dissimilar effects in the two cities. Fox example, if original property values in Brookville are low, it would be easy to raise no matter what measure was implemented. But for Deerhaven, may be its property values are already very high and difficult to raise. Thus the measure that is valuable in Brookville may be of no use in Deerhaven.[建议写下，也许 Brookville房子本来就非常好，粉刷一个漂亮的外观能帮助吸引顾客，而Deerhaven房子都很旧，设施很差，不适合用来做商业用途，即使外观变漂亮了仍然不会有人愿意住]（这2段比我写得好多了，呵呵）

In sum, the author should provide more information to preclude other conditions that may influence the property values. Further, it would be convincing that more evidence be provided to demonstrate the experience in the past and in another city could be used in Deerhaven.
我也刚开始写了几篇，不太会的，帮忙看下我的：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 dunan 于 2006-3-10 23:19 编辑 ]

looflirpaUID: 204752

谢谢楼上兄弟。你的修改我稍后看，先看看你的。不过你给的链接不好使，要搜一下

tonygumpUID: 201035

The argument is not cogent because it assumes that occurrence one after another implies causation, which is not necessarily the case. Further, no evidence could demonstrate the author's assumption that what happened seven years ago or in Brookville will take place in Deerhaven too.[开头简洁，不错]

In the first place, the author fails to demonstrate that the sharp rise in average property values of Brookville was result from the adoption of a set of restrictions on landscaping and exteriors painting. It is entirely possible that the raising of value [are]due to other reasons instead of restrictions as the author presented above. For example, many things could changed in Brookville in the past seven years, such as improvements of transportation, instruction of a new university, even a long-term inflation, that would possibly lead to the boost of property values. In short, without evidence that all other conditions that might affect the property values have remained unchanged, the author's assumption that the restriction is responsible for the higher value is questionable at best.[举了三个例子，都很有说服力。我个人还是认为多多染开比较好。例如：交通便利了->
人多了-〉供不应求了-〉上涨了，多写一点哈。重在展开~~~]

Even if the restriction of landscaping and painting could serve to the raise of property value during the last seven years, it might not the case in the future.[承上启下，不错] In such a long time, many[看过一篇关于style的文章，它说many少用~以供参考~] conditions such as evaluate standard for property values may have changed. It is possible that people in the past think a lot of the exterior of the house in community but now pay more attention to the function of the houses. [这里就展开了，很不错。。]If so, people would like to invest in houses with high-tech furniture rather than nothing but looks good. Thereby, the restriction of landscaping in Deerhaven might not result in the raise of property values as it done in Brookville.

In addition, even if the restriction of landscaping and painting could serve to the raise of property value in Brookville, it is not necessarily the case in Deerhaven. The author did not compare the two areas and failed to consider the differences between them, by which it is possible that the same measure might take dissimilar effects in the two cities. Fox example, if original property values in Brookville are low, it would be easy to raise no matter what measure was implemented. But for Deerhaven, may be its property values are already very high and difficult to raise. Thus the measure that is valuable in Brookville may be of no use in Deerhaven.
[根基不同，这个批驳的不错，也有展开。也有可能是人们的观念不同，气候拉，环境拉有所区别]

In sum, the author should provide more information to preclude other conditions that may influence the property values. Further, it would be convincing that more evidence be provided to demonstrate the experience in the past and in another city could be used in Deerhaven.

总来说很不错，语言没有太大问题，段落衔接也很不错，赞的！有空看一下我的文章把：总来说很不错，语言没有太大问题，段落衔接也很不错，赞的！有空看一下我的文章把：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... type%26typeid%3D102