Argument2 【FLAMY JULY小组】我的第一篇ARGU

heapUID: 2122790

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 letter, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres ( DA ) holds the argument that in order to increase the property values of DA, homeowners should carry out a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support this recommendation the committee points out that after the adoption of similar restrictions in Brookville community (BC) for seven years, the property values have risen. Despite the provided reasonable argument, the whole article has some critical defects as follows.

In the first place, there is no concrete evidence that the restrictions on landscaping and house painting are responsible for the rise of the property value. In fact, the letter fails to account for other factors that might be more significant than the restrictions in determining the consequences. Perhaps the growth is caused by the inflation and devaluation of the economy, since property values are evaluated by the form of monetary. Or perhaps the rise is caused by the growing value of the land. Besides, considering that property values are a function of both supply and demand, it is quite possible that the rise is determined by the depression of the supply. Without excluding these possibilities, the contribution of restrictions to the rise of property value is doubted.

Even assuming that BC’s rising property values are attributed by the implementation of these restrictions, the argument above is still weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between BC and DA. For example, though BC and AD are nearby, the preference of consumers might vary in the two communities. If consumers in BC prefer the integrity of the building while people in DA hate to be restricted and expect their yards to be painted “unique”, then the result of the restrictions will be quite the opposite. To avoid the potential problems，it is necessary for DA to study the situation of its own before following BC to adopt such restrictions.

Furthermore, the author fails to convince us that the success measurement in BC seven years ago is suitable for the recent situation in DA. It is quite likely that the restriction of landscaping and house painting is not of much help today to raise the value of property since a considerable period of time has passed. Due to the rapid change of society, what people are fond of several years ago is probably out of fashion. Therefore, it is necessary for the author to provide compelling evidence to prove the availability of the seven-year-ago experience.

Finally, it is insufficient to be convinced that the house owners will benefit from the changes in that profits are decided by both revenues and cost. If the cost is beyond the revenue, it is persuadable that such a restriction will not be accepted by owners.

In conclusion, before persuading me that DA should adopt the proposed restrictions the committee must offer convincing evidence that it is the implementation of BC’s restrictions, not other factors, that was responsible for the rise in BC’s property values. In addition, the committee should also give the evidence that other factors affecting home prices in the two areas are quite similar.

[ 本帖最后由 heap 于 2006-7-5 01:49 编辑 ]

linxzUID: 2225479

In this letter, a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres ( DA ) holds the argument that in order to increase the property values of DA, homeowners should carry out a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support this recommendation the committee points out that after the adoption of similar restrictions in Brookville community (BC) for seven years, the property values have risen. Despite the provided reasonable argument, the whole article has some critical defects as follows.

In the first place, there is no concrete evidence that the restrictions on landscaping and house painting are responsible for the rise of the property value. In fact, the letter fails to account for other factors that might be more significant than the restrictions in determining the consequences. Perhaps the growth is caused by the inflation and devaluationinflation 好！我没有想到 of the economy, since property values are evaluated by the form of monetary. Or perhaps the rise is caused by the growing value of the land. Besides, considering that property values are a function of both supply and demand, it is quite possible that the rise is determined by the depression of the supply. Without excluding these possibilities, the contribution of restrictions to the rise of property value is doubted.从经济的角度分析，很透彻啊！

Even assuming that BC’s rising property values are attributed by the implementation of these restrictions, the argument above is still weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent differences between BC and DA. For example, though BC and AD are nearby, the preference of consumers might vary in the two communities. If consumers in BC prefer the integrity of the building while people in DA hate to be restricted and expect their yards to be painted “unique”, then the result of the restrictions will be quite the opposite. To avoid the potential problems，it is necessary for DA to study the situation of its own before following BC to adopt such restrictions.这条有点略微牵强。。。。

Furthermore, the author fails to convince us that the success measurement in BC seven years ago is suitable for the recent situation in DA. It is quite likely that the restriction of landscaping and house painting is not of much help today to raise the value of property since a considerable period of time has passed. Due to the rapid change of society, what people are fond of several years ago is probably out of fashion. Therefore, it is necessary for the author to provide compelling evidence to prove the availability of the seven-year-ago experience.also nice!

Finally, it is insufficient to be convinced that the house owners will benefit from the changes in that profits are decided by both revenues and cost. If the cost is beyond the revenue, it is persuadable that such a restriction will not be accepted by owners.

In conclusion, before persuading me that DA should adopt the proposed restrictions the committee must offer convincing evidence that it is the implementation of BC’s restrictions, not other factors, that was responsible for the rise in BC’s property values. In addition, the committee should also give the evidence that other factors affecting home prices in the two areas are quite similar.


总体而言是很漂亮的文章，理由十分到位。但是有的话有刻意套模板的痕迹，呵呵。加油吧，继续！

对了，友情提示把你所有文章的链接放在一个帖子里边，这样别人看起来方便一些：）

heapUID: 2122790

5555，竟然还有人表扬我……