argument 2 ［加州阳光］小组 第一次作业from ７２８ＡＷ

728AWUID: 2216408

:o    45 min  410 words.
提纲:
1.作者没提供证据说RESTRICTIONS是唯一让地产升值的原因,可能有其它原因导致这样的结果.
2.作者错误地把现在等同于7年前,时间改变一切~
3.作者潜意识地地把两个社区等同起来,但是两个社区各自有着不同,可能是BROOKVILLE的宜人风景和便利交通导致人们愿意过去居住,而不是表面上的改改LANDSCAPING AND HOUSEPAINTING.

In this argument, the author assumes that due to the due to a preceding experience from the nearby Brookville 7 years ago, we should adopt the same restrictions in order to triple our property values. Notwithstanding, a careful examination of the argument would reveal that that alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of its conclusion and fails to provide compelling support making the argument sound.

First of all, as the arguer provide no evidence, I have to doubt that whether the restrictions were the only influences that triple the average property value. The argument ignores the factors-such as environment, residents’ attitudes towards housing, community policy-varies from one to another. And unfortunately, these factors ,which are all neglected by the arguer,  take a large part in increasing the average property than just merely adopt a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. To attain the same average property, not only have we take the same restrictions as the homeowners in nearby Brookville community do, but also we should take a sight in the other factors which may influent the average property and work them out.


Furthermore, even if the only reason that cause the average property tripled is the restrictions that Brookville community adopted, the arguer have no evidence to reach the conclusion that adopting the same restrictions may lead  Deerhaven Acres the same average property due to the temporal factors make the things different. With the rapid speed development the society undergoing, the condition make a huge difference when compared to the same condition 7 years ago. So the arguer make a false analogy when neglecting the time difference.


The last but not the least ,the aruger  simply assumes the two separate communities equally,which is unwarranted. The beautiful sceneries and the convenient traffic in Brookville is the advantage that Deerhaven can not beat besides the apparent restrictions as the arguer see. And may be these are the factors are the resident inclined to buy the houses there besides the beautiful landscaping and housepainting.

To sum up, despite the seemingly plausible argument, it is, in fact, neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out some key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence which does lead strong support to what the arguer points out. If the argument could include the factors discussed above and provide more details and information about the evidence presented by the author, the argument would be more thorough and adequate.

[ 本帖最后由 728AW 于 2006-6-3 06:37 编辑 ]

leaf99UID: 2174003

argument 2 ［加州阳光］小组　第一次作业from ７２８ＡＷ

    45 min  410 words.
提纲:
1.作者没提供证据说RESTRICTIONS是唯一让地产升值的原因,可能有其它原因导致这样的结果.
2.作者错误地把现在等同于7年前,时间改变一切~
3.作者潜意识地地把两个社区等同起来,但是两个社区各自有着不同,可能是BROOKVILLE的宜人风景和便利交通导致人们愿意过去居住,而不是表面上的改改LANDSCAPING AND HOUSEPAINTING.

In this argument, the author assumes that due to the due to a preceding experience from the nearby Brookville 7 years ago, we(why we) should adopt the same restrictions in order to triple our property values. Notwithstanding, a careful examination of the argument would reveal that that alone does not constitute a logical argument in favor of its conclusion and fails to provide compelling support making the argument sound.

First of all, as(since) the arguer provide no evidence, I have to doubt that whether the restrictions were the only influences(reason) that triple(tripled) the average property value. The argument ignores the factors(other factors)-such as environment, residents’ attitudes towards housing, community policy-varies from one to another. And unfortunately, these factors ,which are all neglected by the arguer,  take a large part in increasing the average property than just merely adopt a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. To attain the same average property, not only have(should) we take the same restrictions as the homeowners in nearby Brookville community do, but also we should take a sight in the other factors which may influent the average property and work them out.

Furthermore, even if the only reason that cause the average property tripled is the restrictions that Brookville community adopted, the arguer have no evidence to reach the conclusion that adopting the same restrictions may lead  Deerhaven Acres the same average property due to the temporal factors make the things different. With the rapid speed development the society undergoing, the condition make a huge difference when compared to the same condition 7 years ago. So the arguer make a false analogy when neglecting the time difference.


The last but not the least ,the aruger  simply assumes the two separate communities equally,which is unwarranted（treat..equally/ assume ...are equally, 不能用equally 修饰assume）. The beautiful sceneries and the convenient traffic in Brookville is the advantage that Deerhaven can not beat besides the apparent restrictions as the arguer see（how do you know ?）. And may be these are the factors are the resident inclined to buy the houses there besides the beautiful landscaping and housepainting.

To sum up, despite the seemingly plausible argument, it is, in fact, neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out some key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence which does lead strong support to what the arguer points out.（句型不对） If the argument could include the factors discussed above and provide more details and information about the evidence presented by the author, the argument would be more thorough and adequate.

总体：论证清晰，但是语言不够，可能和issue有同样的句型问题
ps为什么一直用我们？修改语言就没有大问题

请Pa修改叶子的argu https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 leaf99 于 2006-6-3 13:39 编辑 ]