argument 2

fredpinUID: 202236

题目：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."
字数：434          用时：1:16:02          日期：2006-3-11

syllabus:
First, average property value have tripled in Brookville(BR) because of landscaping and housepainting;
Second, if DA also use this method, which is belonging to BR, the property value may increase in the future;
Third, whether the plan, which had been executed seven years ago, must have been effect on DA.

In the argument, the arguer draw a conclusion that Deerhaven Acres (DA) should adopt to their own series of rules on landscaping and housepainting. However, in my part, the arguer makes some fallacies in causation, analogism, and logic. First, average property value have tripled in Brookville(BR) because of landscaping and housepainting; Second, if DA also use this method, which is belonging to BR, the property value may increase in the future; Third, whether the plan, which had been executed seven years ago, must have been effect on DA. As for these fallacies, for the following reasons:

In the first place, the arguer fails to believe the causal relationship between tripled property value and landscaping and housepainting. The arguer can not rule out the possibility that increasing property value may be caused by other factors in such rocketing number of population, the cost of houses, and government behavior. Moreover, the arguer should provide sufficient evidence about the basic number of the original price in BR, otherwise, the concept of tripled value can not convince DA to consider BR's plan.

In the second place, the arguer's assumption in short of legitimacy is the analogy between BR and DA. It is likely possible that DA have many different characters with BR. As for the housing price, the price of DA may so reasonable that it is no problem in house sale. So, if DA uses BA's rules, which is landscaping and painting, it must completely have possibility that the price of DA is influenced even decreasing. Consequently, to be considering the development of location and the benefit of tax payer, DA should have responsibility to precisely compare local situation with BR.

In the third place, the arguer commits a fallacy of logic. The fact is that DA refers to BR's restrictions, which is executed before seven years. However, the arguer can not rule out the possibility that the lifestyle of local people have changed that residents did not like the fashion of yards and the color of the housepainting and landscaping. In addition, the buyers pay more attention to environment, convenience, comfort, and safety. Hence, DA should revise the outdated viewpoint and focus on the current mainstream.  

From what has been discussed above, the arguer's conclusion can not be supported by his/her claims. Unless DA can give evidence to indicate that the proper value of DA must increase just like residents' lifestyle, the number of population, affording ability, and so on, the author’s assumptions are incredibility. To better access the argument, the arguer would have to provide evidence that DA and BR are similar in every aspect. To support this argument, the arguer would have produce evidence concerning climate, location, environment, and so forth.

tonygumpUID: 201035

First, average property value have tripled in Brookville(BR) because of landscaping and housepainting;
Second, if DA also use this method, which is belonging to BR, the property value may increase in the future;
Third, whether the plan, which had been executed seven years ago, must have been effect on DA.

In the argument, the arguer draw a conclusion that Deerhaven Acres (DA) should adopt to their own series of rules on landscaping and housepainting. However, in my part, the arguer makes some fallacies in causation, analogism, and logic. First, average property value have tripled in Brookville(BR) because of landscaping and housepainting; Second, if DA also use this method, which is belonging to BR, the property value may increase in the future; Third, whether the plan, which had been executed seven years ago, must have been effect on DA. As for these fallacies, for the following reasons:[imong说开头不要太罗嗦，特别不要罗列作者的论据，他有一篇文章，你可以看一下]

In the first place, the arguer fails to believe the causal relationship between tripled property value and landscaping and housepainting. The arguer can not rule out the possibility[复数] that increasing property value may be caused by other factors in[of吧~~~] such[去掉such] rocketing number of population, the cost of houses, and government behavior. Moreover, the arguer should provide sufficient evidence about the basic number of the original price in BR, otherwise, the concept of tripled value can not convince DA to consider BR's plan.[两个错误，但是展开的不够，人数增长了然后呢？需求高了！然后就供不应求了！然后就上涨了。国家怎样的行动呢？增加贷款了？促进内需了？等等都要罗列一下，那样才有说服力！不要留太多空间给看作文的人去想象阿。。]

In the second place, the arguer's assumption in short of legitimacy is the analogy between BR and DA. It is likely possible[用一个就够了吧] that DA have many different characters with BR. As for the housing price, the price of DA may so reasonable that it is no problem in house sale[这话有点chienglish阿。。]. So, if DA uses BA's rules, which is [restricion of]landscaping and painting, it must completely have possibility[病句] that the price of DA is influenced even decreasing. Consequently, to be considering the development of location and the benefit of tax payer, DA should have responsibility to precisely compare local situation with BR.

In the third place, the arguer commits a fallacy of logic. The fact is that DA refers to BR's restrictions, which is executed before seven years. However, the arguer can not rule out the possibility that the lifestyle of local people have changed that residents did not like the fashion of yards and the color of the housepainting and landscaping. In addition, the buyers pay more attention to environment, convenience, comfort, and safety. Hence, DA should revise the outdated viewpoint and focus on the current mainstream.  [这段不错，主要是展开了，他们哪里变化了呢？他们跟喜欢了什么呢？你都展开了，不错]

From what has been discussed above, the arguer's conclusion can not be supported by his/her claims. Unless DA can give evidence to indicate that the proper value of DA must increase just like residents' lifestyle, the number of population, affording ability, and so on, the author’s assumptions are incredibility[credible]. To better access the argument, the arguer would have to provide evidence that DA and BR are similar in every aspect. To support this argument, the arguer would have produce evidence concerning climate, location, environment, and so forth.

[提一点意见：虽然错误都找出来了，但是发现没有?文章被分割成了五部分，没有一点连贯性，我认为驳斥也要有一定的逻辑结构：第一个错误，批驳；若第一个没有问题，那我驳第二个；若前面都没有问题，还有第三个呢！我认为应该这样]

fredpinUID: 202236

谢谢你
我24号考，前两天才报的。

fredpinUID: 202236

谢谢你
我24号考，前两天才报的。