Argument2 GREgarious小组－Orimy习作帖

OrimyUID: 2168139

0606G同主题写作第十二期——Argument2

题目：

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."

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。

正文：
          The committee of homeowners from Deerhaven Acres (DA) concludes that DA should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise property values.  To support this assertion, the arguer claims that average property values have tripled in Brookville for the reason they adopted a set of restrictions on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and the colors of homes should be painted. While it seems to be causal, in fact this evidence provides little credible support for the arguer’s conclusion.

          First of all, no evidence is provided that tripled values of the average property have any relation with landscaped and the house colors. Perhaps value arising is caused by the moving of people into Brookville, or even perhaps the better market operation and the increasing of surrounding conditions in the community. Without such information, it cannot be proved that landscaping and housepainting can promote the values.

          Secondly, Even if the landscaped and house colors do have some help to the average property values improving, the auger fails to conclude how many homeowners have put these restrictions into use, or the percentage of these homeowners who have realize the restrictions. If only a few of the whole homeowners have landscaped and colored their houses, for examples less that 10%, then the effect of the restriction would be very little.

          Thirdly, even if Brookville’s average property values have tripled is for the reason of landscaping and housepainting, DA will not necessarily raise property values by the same way with Brookville. Maybe DA have a much more serious situations which cannot be simply handled by changing the landscaping and housepainting. Without more information about the location, quality of building, and neighborhood situations, it is impossible to determine whether DA can have their value increased.

          Finally, the restriction about landscaping and housepainting of Brookville is made seven years ago, which may influence little to people’s life now. And what’s more, the arguer does not provide the initial house value of Brookville and DA’s, so maybe the triple value of Brookville is no more than the initial house value of DA’s. Lacking such information, the arguer could not draw such a conclusion.

          In short, the letter’s recommendation is not well supported. Before I accept it, the arguer must supply clearer evidence that the landscaping and housepainting do effect a lot with the house values, and the quantity of homeowners who obey this restriction takes up a great part in all of the homeowners. And also DA and Brookville have the similar situations that they can both restrict the landscaping and housepainting to raise their property values.



欢迎大家拍，必回！！

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-3-11 22:08 编辑 ]

fredpinUID: 202236

The committee of homeowners from Deerhaven Acres (DA) concludes that DA should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise property values.  To support this assertion, the arguer claims that average property values have tripled in Brookville for the reason they adopted a set of restrictions on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and the colors of homes should be painted. While it seems to be causal, in fact this evidence provides little credible support for the arguer’s conclusion.结构很清楚

          First of all, no evidence is provided that tripled values of the average property have any relation with landscaped and the house colors. Perhaps value arising is caused by the moving of people into Brookville, or even perhaps the better market operation and the increasing of surrounding conditions in the community. Without such information, it cannot be proved[demonstrated] that landscaping and housepainting can promote the values.

          Secondly, Even if the landscaped and house colors do have some help to the average property values improving, the auger fails to conclude how many homeowners have put these restrictions into use, or the percentage of these homeowners who have realize the restrictions. If only a few of the whole homeowners have landscaped and colored their houses, for examples less that 10%, then the effect of the restriction would be very little.

          Thirdly, even if Brookville’s average property values have tripled is for the reason of landscaping and housepainting, DA will not necessarily raise property values by the same way with Brookville. Maybe DA have a much more serious situations which cannot be simply handled by changing the landscaping and housepainting. Without more information about the location, quality of building, and neighborhood situations, it is impossible to determine whether DA can have their value increased.[建议在开头指出，arguer范了错误类比的问题]

          Finally, the restriction about landscaping and housepainting of Brookville is made seven years ago, which may influence little to people’s life now. And what’s more, the arguer does not provide the initial house value of Brookville and DA’s, so maybe the triple value of Brookville is no more than the initial house value of DA’s. Lacking such information, the arguer could not draw such a conclusion.[我觉得这里时间上的逻辑错误，主要是在B制定的限制在现在的DA是否还适用，不适用了可能是因为人们的口味变了，考察房屋的立足点改变了]
         
          In short, the letter’s recommendation is not well supported. Before I accept it, the arguer must supply clearer evidence that the landscaping and housepainting do effect [on] a lot with the house values, and the quantity of homeowners who obey this restriction takes up a great part in all of the homeowners. And also DA and Brookville have the similar situations that they can both restrict the landscaping and housepainting to raise their property values.

水平有限，多包涵。

OrimyUID: 2168139

谢了谢啦，我继续修改，下午再奉上，请继续关注撒～～；）

zj832001UID: 2196469

In this letter, the author argues that they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housing house-painting in order to raise values in Deerhaven Acres (DA). To support this claim, the author points out that average property values in Brookville have tripled in that homeowners there adopted the same actions seven years ago. This argument is problematic in several critical respects.
First of all, the argument is based on a false analogy. The author simply assumes that the approach available in Brookville must be effective in DA while no evidences are provided that they are comparable. In fact, it is probably that many fundamental differences between them, such as the tastes and interests of residents of the two areas are largely unlikely, or perhaps the levels of consumption cannot be equally treated, and as we all known, different levels of income mean different things to be looked after .All above prove that the two situations are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. Therefore, the arguer claims the method will work well in DA is dubious at best.
In the second place, the author fails to take into account other factors which may cause the increase of the average property values in Broolville, in other words ,the author groundlessly establishes a causal relationship between the increase of the average property values and restrictions on landscaping and house-painting. It is highly possible that other factors might contribute the progress of the values .For example ,it is likely resulted from the prosperity of the economy, as improving the standard of living, which may stimulate the purchasing of the property. Also may from increase of demands for houses, for reason that the influx of extraneous persons, or the policy of the government, and so forth. Thus, without ruling out other factors, it is presumptuous to suggest that restrictions on landscaping and house-painting are responsible for increase of the average property values.
Moreover, it is assumed without justification that background conditions have remained the same at different times. The arguer unfairly infers from successful cases in the past that the same approach used nowadays will be also effective .However, he/she fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this inference .It is very likely the tastes of residents of Brookville have changed a lot, or that economic situation has been declining in these years, and so on. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housing house-painting.
In conclusion, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To persuade me that DA should take the measures, which was used to ameliorate the price of average property in Brookville seven years ago, the author must supply clear evidence that the method would be the same effective in DA as in Brookville. The author also shows that there indeed exists causal relationship between the increase of the average property values and restrictions on landscaping and house-painting. To better bolster the arguer's claim, I would need to know if there are any changes in conditions at different times.

[ 本帖最后由 zj832001 于 2006-3-13 12:50 编辑 ]