argument2 义无反顾小组第七次作业

天边一朵云UID: 2157330

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."



  516 words

In this argument, the arguer recommends to set restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in Deerhaven Acres in order to raise property values ,based on the evidence that in nearby Brookville community where restrictions seven years ago on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted have resulted in an increase of the average property values there. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the suggestion is.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted and the tripled increase of average property values in Brookville. As a matter of fact, there are a great many reasons contributing to such kind of a outcome from an economist's point of view. On the first hand, the value will mount up as a result of the increase of demand The birth rate may soared in the past seven years leading to an inflation of the local population or the average income of local families increased thus they possess more than one house than they do in the past. On the other hand, the decrease of supply has the same impact on the average property value. Government may exert more taxes on land render it more expensive to build houses. In a word, setting restrictions on landscaping and housepainting does not necessarily bring about the increase of average property values unless the arguer provides more detailed information about the relationship between them.

Another problem that undermines the argument is that the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy. Just as the old saying goes, there are no leaves that are similar to each other, not to mention two communities. The arguer draws the hasty conclusion that Deerhaven Acres should adopt the same restrictions as Brookville did without comparing them in aspects such as transportation, population, personal income, the rent of land and the inclination and customs of the local families, all of which are distinctive characteristics differentiating both communities. Thus it is more than likely that the same restrictions that are effective to Brookville won't work well in Deerhaven Acres.

Last but not least, such kind of restrictions may impair average property values rather than increase it, since it is possible that local residents do not favor house that share exactly the same appearance, and refuse to move in Deerhaven Acres. Hence I simply cannot be swayed by the arguer’s recommendation before he provides evidence that the local people will support these restrictions.

In conclusion, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument convincing, the arguer would have to prove that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in Brookville did increase the average property values in the past seven years. Moreover, to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the similarities and differences between the two communities as well as people’s reactions to these restrictions.

yuviUID: 2169411

先来占个座吧,现在我这里凌晨5点多..
请大家原谅我现在的脑袋实在没有办法写作文.#_#
也很不好意思..我这篇文章要迟交了..:(

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

(1)B社区七年前的经验能否再适用收到质疑；
（2）没有考虑地价上升的其他原因；
（3）没有考虑到居民的反映：有些喜欢个性化的居民，可能会反对这个做法.

By consideration of the experience of the nearby community, Brookville, which had successfully raised its average property by means of a set of restriction on landscaping and house painting, the committee persuades all residents in Dddrhaven adopted the same set. Plausible as it seems at first, the recommendation leave much to be questioned.

First of all, the arguer conducts a false analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven. There is no further information concerning about the difference between the two communities. Supposing Brookville community features largely in their travel industry, and the uniformities of the house appearance would help them to get a good impression of the travelers, they would like to landscape their yards with the same design, or paint the exteriors in same colors. When it comes to Deerhaven, it may not be a good idea, since we have no knowledge about its conditions though they are nearby. What's more, from the statement, we get to know, the restriction was carried out 7 years ago, we have good reason to suspect whether it still be effective today. Unless the arguer sweeps out all the suspicion discussed above, can he convince us the reliability of the assertion


Secondly, the speaker fails to take into consideration about the alternative explanations which have contributed to the increasing of the property value in Brookvill. Though it is very true that a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting played a main role in the property value, it does not mean other factors can't take influence in the process. For instance, in order to spur the estate demand, the local government past a statute to curb the tax revenue. It may highly possible that many people migrated to find job for the optimistic development in Brookvill during the past 7 years. Without ruling out these or other possibilities, we can accept the conclusion without doubt.


The arguer comes to a generation hastily. Before we take any  proposal into practice, we should collect the advice from the public, considerate their habits, religion ,customs and so on. If people prefer to paint their house according to their designs, or they can't afford the expenditure of the adoption required by the government, they would object the proposal at the first time. The government should respect their choice. After all, for these are somewhat personal behaviors which should not be intervened by the authority.

In sum, if the community wants to raise its property value, more investigation and detailed plan are needed. The superficial copy of the method from the nearby community would lead to not only economical penalty but also antipathy from the local residents.
这次只写了438个字，为了训练速度。

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

怎么大家都没有动静了？

glxingUID: 2156425

提纲：
1，没有说明那些限制是否有效
2，即使有效，在该地区能行吗？两地区有差异
3，时间是七年前的，太久了，发生了变化——————我总觉得这一段是废话，但是摆着  
     那个“seven years” 不批，我实在憋得难受
4，其他措施呢？

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 house painting."

In this argument , the arguer claims that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting because Briikville, the nearby community, had adopted such restrictions and its average property values had tripled seven years ago. However, close scrutiny of the argument reveals that it is logically flawed in several respects.

First of all, the arguer does not assure that those restrictions in Briikville community have played a determinative role in raising the property values. As we all know, the property value is determined by many factors such as the area's development, the inflation and the growth of numbers of employers who plan to buy homes in local area. So it is possible that the rise of property value in Briikville is mainly caused by other reasons rather than adopting those restrictions. Without excluding such possibilities, the author's suggestion about those restrictions does not make any sense.

Secondly, granted that these restrictions do have effect on the increase of average property values ,they may be not beneficial to Deerhaven Acres because of the difference between the two cities. The effect of restrictions varies from the actual conditions of cities. Maybe the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres do not like the uniform landscape and housepainting and want to try their favourite colors and designing style instead, so it is totally possible that they would complain and even move out of the community if Deerhaven Acres has adopted such restrictions. This will in turn cause the decrease of average property values, so the arguer should do more survey about the conditions and residents of Deerhaven Acres to make sure the restrictions is feasible.  

In addition, the restrictions were carried out seven years ago and the condition in nowadays may be totally different, however, the author states unconvincingly that those restrictions would take effect as before. It is possible that people now begin to emphasize on the quality of houses and the environment nearby.

Finally, the arguer overlooks other factors that help to raise the average property values. For example, the government could construct more lawn and plant more trees near the community to improve the local environment ,or the government build a subway to attract more population to live in. These factors all may result in the increase of property values.

In summary, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to show that the restrictions have great effect on the increase of property values in Brookville community. Additionally, the author must provide evidence of the similarity
between the two cities. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.

yuviUID: 2169411

互改顺序: 云MM ---> KITTY ----> YUVI ---->小蜗牛 ----> PK ----> 云MM

[ 本帖最后由 yuvi 于 2006-5-20 01:22 编辑 ]

yuviUID: 2169411

小蜗牛的:

提纲：
1，没有说明那些限制是否有效
2，即使有效，在该地区能行吗？两地区有差异
3，时间是七年前的，太久了，发生了变化——————我总觉得这一段是废话，但是摆着  
     那个“seven years” 不批，我实在憋得难受（呵呵，这个也可以放在上面一段来说的，我觉得考场可能会没有时间另批一段）4，其他措施呢？



In this argument , the arguer claims that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting because Briikville（Brookville，晕，题目要看清楚啊。。后面好象都写错了）, the nearby community, had adopted such restrictions and its average property values had tripled seven years ago. However, close scrutiny of the argument reveals that it is logically flawed in several respects.

First of all, the arguer does not assure that those restrictions in Briikville community have played a determinative role in raising the property values. As we all know, the property value is determined by many factors such as the area's development, the inflation and the growth of numbers of employers who plan to buy homes in local area.（ the growth of numbers of employers who plan to buy homes in local area ，这句话好象有点罗嗦啊，用 potential consumer不知道行不？）So it is possible that the rise of property value in Briikville is mainly caused by other reasons rather than adopting those restrictions. Without excluding （双否？没有排除这些可能？）such possibilities, the author's suggestion about those restrictions does not make any sense.

Secondly, granted that these restrictions do have effect on the increase of average property values ,they may be not beneficial to Deerhaven Acres because of the difference between the two cities. The effect of restrictions varies from the actual conditions of cities. Maybe the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres do not like the uniform landscape and housepainting and want to try their favourite colors and designing style instead（说是限制，有可能是比如：围墙不能超过1米，房子不可以刷白色等等。。但是不见得都是一模一样的吧，所以我觉得用uniform有点不妥。）, so it is totally possible that they would complain and even move out of the community if Deerhaven Acres has adopted such restrictions. This will in turn cause the decrease of average property values, so the arguer should do more survey about the conditions and residents of Deerhaven Acres to make sure the restrictions is feasible.  

In addition, the restrictions were carried out seven years ago and the condition in nowadays may be totally different, however, the author states unconvincingly that those restrictions would take effect as before. It is possible that people now begin to emphasize on the quality of houses and the environment nearby.（呵呵，意见同上，完全可以和第三段合并的。比如：两个城市不存在比较，第一，居民爱好不同，所以社区风格不同；第二，发生时间不同，所以存在审美差异。）
Finally, the arguer overlooks other factors that help to raise the average property values. For example, the government could construct more lawn and plant more trees near the community to improve the local environment ,or the government build a subway to attract more population to live in. These factors all may result in the increase of property values. （恩，感觉最后的思路不错，就是举的前一个例子有点牵强。。种树栽花能够让地产价格翻倍吗？除非是整个城市的环境大改造吧。。呵呵，后面的subway 我觉得可能性挺大）
In summary, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to show that the restrictions have great effect on the increase of property values in Brookville community. Additionally, the author must provide evidence of the similarity
between the two cities. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.

总结：
小蜗牛的思路挺好的。就是看题目要看清楚啊，brookville，不要把这么重要的信息给打错了咯。不然考官看了印象说不顶要打折扣。。
还有就是把7年单独拿出来说好象有点勉强。。（我写的时候也考虑过把它单独批一下，但是发现可以批的东西不是那么站得住脚，所以作罢）
可以考虑和两市不可比较那段合并一样，显得文章有层次。（原来的段落太短了哈）

kittywen_16UID: 2135347

提綱：
1．        统一房子外觀與價值的聯係很小。1、2两点实际上说的是同一个错误2．        房子升值的其他潛在可能性:
a)        七年前正好開發了新的房產,所以帶動平均值
b)        b市人口增長帶動房子增值
3．        兩市不能對比。

The author of this letter recommends that in order to promote the value of Deerhaven property, all the homeowners should restricting their landscaping and housepainting. To support this recommendation, the author mentioned that since the homeowners in nearby Brookville set some restrictions on landscaping and housepainting【又一次复述题目，有点罗嗦】 at seven years ago, the average property values have tripled in there. However, the author's argument suffers from a series of logical problems, and is therefore wholly unpersuasive.

Firstly, how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors should be painted on the exteriors of homes that do not have a huge direct-relationship with the property values have been tripled in Brookville at seven years ago. Common sense informs us that the value of an estate property always considered by many sorts of the conditions, such as the location of the property, the quality of the house, and the environment of the community etc. Without considering those possible factors that make the property values tripod in Brookville, the author cannot justifiably conclude that the values were enhancing caused by the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.

Even assuming that to set restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in Brookville might have some relationships with the property value, the author's argument still been absent of others possibilities to indicate them. On one hand, as the author mentioned, the average property have been tripled in Brookville, however, it does not mean the whole value of the community could be increased. There is a possibility that seven years ago Brookville just been exploited a range of the new estates, and therefore made the average property values raised up with three times; On the other hand, there is another possibility that the property in Brookville were already got potential values for the enhancing at seven years ago. For example, it might be a huge demand at that time in real estate market due to the population booming in Brookville. Without ruling out these and other possible causes, the inference made by this author cannot be stand as a well-ground one.【第一，二两段实际上指出的是同一个错误，可以合并起来】
Last but not least, the author also fallacious to make a comparison between Brookville and Deerheaven Acres. For instance, the residents of Brookville might be more conservative therefore people in there would like restricting their houses. And perhaps the residents of Deerhaven, or the potential homebuyers, they might prefer to show the individualities for the their homes【应该说Deerhaven 居民更追求个性化，统一的外观不意味内部装饰也统一，也可以给别人展示房间】. For this reason, to set restrictions on the home's exterior appearances might cause a decrease of the property values as the result in Deerhaven. Without considering the dissimilarities between Brookville and Deerhaven, the author cannot simply made【make】 the recommendation for all house owners in Deerhaven.

In conclusion, the committee's recommendation cannot stand on well ground. It might be many factors that affect the result of the raising of the property values in Brookville, only【Only】 follow【following】 the restrictions on landscaping and house painting might not be affect in Deerhaven as well. To better evaluate the argument, the committee of Deerhaven need provide more evidences about the reasons that made the property values gone up three times in Brookville， that 【and whether it 】is really made by the restrictions applied on their exterior appearances of the houses, and【or we are not sure if 】 those restrictions also suitable for Deerhaven.

总结：每次改芹菜的作业都很放心，她的语言流畅，很少有语法和拼写错误，能发现一处，都让我有一种r如释重负的感觉“终于找到你的错误了！”她的提纲写得很详细，也很深入，很多地方我没有想到过。但反过来，芹菜妹妹自己在前面一副帖子里也说道，有的题目考虑得太过细致，平常练习倒还无所谓，考试时间就成问题了。所以，抓大放小，有时间再在小处上分析，这就是我的建议。

glxingUID: 2156425

小蜗牛改PK

１．Brookville community 的地产价格的增加与一序列的限制措施没有必然的联系．
２．两者之间进行了错误的类比．
３．即使Deerhaven Acres采取了他自己的限制措施，也未必会增加其地产价格的增加 论点不好，见下面分析
The author concludes that a set of restrictions on landscaping and painting should be adopted in Deerhaven Acres. In order to justify this, the author provides that a series of restrictions on landscaping and painting contribute to the increase of average property values in nearby Brookville community. However, through making a scrutiny , there are several logical flaws in this argument , as follows.

To begin with, the increase of average property values in nearby Brookville community might have not no necessary relationship with the set of restrictions. In the first place, the author maybe neglect that there are other reasons rather than the set of restrictions causing increase of average property values. For example, the local government took some effective policies to promote local economy, thus many residents are so rich that they compete with each other to buy new homes, then this leads to average property values in nearby Brookville community. In the second place, there may be a lot of people from other place gradually immigrating into Brookville community during the seven years, so the needs for these people to purchase new homes rise little by little.

In addition, the author gives a false analogy between Brookville community and Deerhaven Acres. Firstly, the author does not indicate what the situation of Brookville community was seven years ago, so whether the recent situation 我老是不清楚condition和situation用法上的的区别，pk，你能告诉我吗，谢啦~！ of Deerhaven Acres  are different from temporal Brookville community's situation is unknown. Therefore, a set of  restrictions perhaps are necessary to be adopted.少了一个否定词吧，你想表达的意思应该是“are not necessary” Secondly, even though today's Deerhaven Acres have the same situation as  Brookville community seven years ago, Deerhaven Acres maybe take a set of their own restrictions. Because it may be of ineffectiveness for   Deerhaven Acres to raise their property values.这一句你没有展开，比如列举一些自己特色的措施。

Last but not the least, even if Deerhaven Acres adopts their own set of restrictions, it is possible that they will not increase the property values.  Residents in Deerhaven Acres perhaps have different custom from Brookville community's, so it is probable that they are not interested in this type of house with a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. 你的这一个论点其实不严谨，少了一半，你可以再加上“还有其他措施可以达到这个目的”，比如，改善社区环境，增加道路，、、

In sum, the author does not persuade me in many aspects. In order to enhance the argument's convincement, the author should provide the real reason of  average property values' increase, the necessity of raising property values in Deerhaven Acres, and whether Deerhaven Acres can increase property values with their own set of restrictions.
总的来说还是可以的，这篇文章其实攻击点不多（我感觉），不知
pk有何看法？   语言上我认为还可以再提高，你可以看一下其他组员，尤其是芹菜和天边一朵云的argument语言，很地道的。

glxingUID: 2156425

芹菜吩咐我写总结，但我们这次作业交得比较晚，现在还有两个人没有批改：PK和云mm。
大家要赶紧呀

glxingUID: 2156425

我先来做个小结：
大家都不约而同地在第一段指出：那些restrictions 与房价上涨没有必然关系，这很好，因为这一个最重要，它给否定了其他都不好使，我是看了芹菜推荐的那几篇文章感觉出来的
第二段：大家差不多都批评错误类比，不多说了
第三段，真可谓丰富多彩，有人说不一定被居民接受，有人说不一定有效果，还有人说忽略了其他方法。但大家的通病在于：没有将论点组织的饱满，所以大家的第三段一个比一个短，呵呵。注意一下PK的，他的作文如果修改完之后结构就很清晰饱满了
这篇文章其实攻击点不是太多，所以大家有必要在语言上多下点功夫，这里表扬天边一朵云，她的语言不错。

最后，还是要批评以下几位同志：
小蜗牛，芹菜，PK ———交作业迟到
天边一朵云，pk————没有给别人批改（不过，天边是第一个交作业的，值得表扬一下）

总结完毕，如有疏漏，多多包涵