argument2 菜鸟第一篇，欢迎猛批！多谢！

yxjessieUID: 194526

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."

The conclusion of this argument seems relatively sound at the first glance, however, the author fails to take into accounts all elements that can cause the raising property values in Deerhaven Acres. The idea that Deerhaven Acres should adopt a set of restriction on landscaping and house-painting might be useful, but there are some more aspects should be more important.

First of all, the author makes a fallacy on the false casual relationship between the restrictions on landscaping and house-painting in Brookville community and the rising values of the average property. There might be a lot other reasons that can cause the property values having tripled in Brookville. Maybe the local economic developed at a really high rate, maybe the population grew so quickly that the demands for housing increased a lot, maybe the house owners rebuilt the interior of the houses as well as the exteriors, or maybe the former price was extremely low, so it was easily to rise. Even after it has tripled, the price might be still not very high.

In addition, what happened in Brookville is insufficient to indicate that the Deerhaven Acres will also increase its property values. Maybe Brookville locates in a wealthy area while Deerhaven Acres in a poor area. People who intend to live in Brookville might prefer the outlook of the community while people in Deerhaven Acres enjoy more freedom of their landscaping and house-painting.

Furthermore, the author fails to provide any information about the recent house condition in Deerhaven Acres. It is probably true that the property values are already really high or the landscaping and house-painting are already well painted enough. Maybe the house-owners in Deerhaven Acres should concern more about things such as the social security and the environmental problems.

Last but not the least, the author unfairly assumed that property values in Deethaven Acres will unquestionably arise in the future if they restrict their landscaping and house-painting, which is unwarranted. Since the restriction was made seven years ago in Brookville, there is no evidence help to forecast the future of the property values in Deerhaven Acres. Is the local economic going to develop continuously? Or is there any restricted policy the government is going to make, which can prevent the higher prices?

Before the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres decided whether to adopt the suggestion by the committee. They should asked more details on why the property values have tripled in the past 7 years in Brookville, what are the present housing condition in Deerhaven Acres and what’s the future of the property valued in Deerhaven Acres?

yxjessieUID: 194526

自己改了之后的：

The conclusion of this argument seems relatively sound at the first glance, however, the author fails to take into accounts all elements that can cause the raising property values in Deerhaven Acres. The idea that Deerhaven Acres should adopt a set of restriction on landscaping and house-painting might be useful, but there are some more aspects should be more important.

First of all, the author assumes that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in Brookville are responsible for its tripled property values, based on the fact that the rising occurred after the adoption of the restriction. However, the sequence of these events is insufficient to prove that the former can cause the latter. The rising property values might has resulted from other aspects. perhaps the local economic developed at a really high rate, or maybe the porpulation grew so quickly that the demand for the housing increased a lot. Without ruling out such scenarios, the author cannot set a cause-and-effect relationship on which the author's conclusion depends.

In addition, it is unfair to conclude based on the rising property values in Brookville that Deerhaven Acres's property values will also increase. Perhaps the enviroment and social security are much better in Brookville. Moreover, perhaps Brookville locates in an area that people like similarity while people in Deerhaven Acre prefer the freedom and the diversity of the landscaping and housepainting. Besides, the author fails to take into accounts the real price in the both communities. It is quite impossible that the property values in Deerhaven Acres are much higher that ones in Brookville. So it is hard to increase the price since people might think it is not worth the money to invest in Deerhaven Acres.

Last but not least, the aurthor's inference that the restrictions, which were effective in the past, will also be useful in the future rested on the poor assumption that all conditions in Brookville will not changed in the future. Since the restriction was made seven years ago, a lot of things may change after that. Will the local economic develop continuously? Are there any restriction that used to limit the property price is going to make by government? Is there any factories that may pollute the environment will be established near the community? Without consider these possibilities, the author cannot persuade me that Brookville's property values will rise in the future.  Say nothing of Deerhaven Acres since it may have more different aspects.

Before the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres decided whether to adopt the suggestion by the committee. They should asked more details on why the property values have tripled in the past 7 years in Brookville, what are the present housing condition in Deerhaven Acres and what’s the future of the property valued in Deerhaven Acres?

[ 本帖最后由 yxjessie 于 2006-3-11 13:06 编辑 ]

fetusUID: 2122681

The conclusion of this argument seems relatively sound at the first glance, however, the author fails to take into accounts all elements that can cause the raising property values in Deerhaven Acres. The idea that Deerhaven Acres should adopt a set of restriction on landscaping and house-painting might be useful, but there are some more aspects should be more important. (be taken consideration)

First of all, the author assumes that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in Brookville are responsible for its tripled property values, based on the fact that the rising occurred after the adoption of the restriction. However, the sequence of these events is insufficient to prove that the former can cause the latter. The rising property values might has resulted from other aspects. Perhaps the local economic developed at a really high rate, or maybe the porpulation grew so quickly that the demand for the housing increased a lot. Therefore, it is likely that the average property value rises due to the increasing demand. Without ruling out such scenarios, the author cannot set a cause-and-effect relationship on which the author's conclusion depends. (改了之后果然比原来好了，开始具体了，不像原来的，感觉虽然列出了可批驳的地方，但是没有深入.)

In addition, it is unfair to conclude based on the rising property values in Brookville that Deerhaven Acres's property values will also increase. Perhaps the environment and social security are much better in Brookville and thus people would like to pay high so as to live there. Moreover, perhaps Brookville locates in an area that people like similarity while people in Deerhaven Acre prefer the freedom and the diversity of the landscaping and house painting. Under this circumstance, regulation will only to put down the average property value rather than raise it, which is opposite of the author’s judgment. Besides, the author fails to take into accounts the real price in the both communities. It is quite impossible that the property values in Deerhaven Acres are much higher that ones in Brookville. So it is hard to increase the price since people might think it is not worth the money to invest in Deerhaven Acres.

Last but not least, the aurthor's inference that the restrictions, which were effective in the past, will also be useful in the future rested on the poor assumption that all conditions in Brookville will not changed in the future. Since the restriction was made seven years ago, a lot of things may change after that. Will the local economic develop continuously? Are there any restriction that used to limit the property price is going to make by government? Is (Are) there any factories that may pollute the environment will be established near the community? Without consider these possibilities, the author cannot persuade me that Brookville's property values will rise in the future.  Say nothing of Deerhaven Acres since it may have more different aspects.

Before the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres decided whether to adopt the suggestion by the committee. (unfinished?) They should asked more details on why the property values have tripled in the past 7 years in Brookville, what are the present housing condition in Deerhaven Acres and what’s the future of the property valued in Deerhaven Acres?


结尾显得有点没有完成的感觉，如果能在深入一点，批驳的再具体一些，会对文章增色不少。跟我写文章有共同的一点，总是点到为止，呵呵，有些话感觉总是说了个开头就没有发展。
不足之处我们再切磋，呵呵。

[ 本帖最后由 fetus 于 2006-3-11 13:48 编辑 ]