argument2 我的第2篇,还有十天了,还是要写快一个钟头,急啊!大家可不可以帮我看看啊

abawtresbonUID: 2164961

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 housepainting."
WORDS: 541          TIME: 0:56:51          DATE: 2006-7-16

In this argument, the arguer suggests that Deerhaven Acres (DA) should adopt own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting to imitate Brookville whose average property values seems to increased after the they applied their restrictions. However, after careful scrutiny, I find the evidence the arguer presents lend little support to this argument.

In the first place, the argument fails to provide sufficient statistics and evidence to show whether the average property values of Brookville has really boomed and tripled. The arguer claims that average values have tripled in Brookville. However, he/she fails to provide the previous statistics of the property values before they have tripled. In this sense, it is very likely that the original property values of Brookville are extremely low, less than one fifth of that of DA. Even if the values have tripled, it is still not in an ideal situation. Moreover, the average property values of this area have raised does not mean the total property values of most part of this area have0 increased. Perhaps, only several houses, less than 10 percent of the total number, has a huge range inclination while other part of this area even has its property values declined slightly. If this really happened, the action that DA should follow Brookville's footprints has little credibility.

Moreover, even if Brookville has had its property values ascend; it is doubtable that whether this benefit should be attributed to its restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. Common sense informs us that, there are many alternatives that contribute to a increase in property values such as enhancement of the whole economic environment, increase of safety assurance of the total area, and the new favorable regulations enacted in this community. For instance, perhaps Brookville is beach town which mostly attract old and retired people to live in. Naturally, what the retired people concern seems to be more about whether this town is quiet enough for resting, whether the environment is polluted which might somewhat threatens their health, or whether this community is safe to live in, rather than the pattern of housepainting and landscaping. The former factors might dominantly affect their decision to buy a house there.

Finally, even DA community adopted the restrictions imitating landscaping and house painting which, after all, are justified as the most important factors leading to the inclination of property values, the future of its property values in this area is still obscured and undetermined.  As we know, Brookville has its restrictions enacted seven years ago. It's doubtable that whether the buyers of the houses still appreciated such housepainting and landscaping and regard it as top priority. The buyers of DA may be cleverer. Maybe, they begin to notice more about the interiors of the house. In this sense, only focusing on landscaping and house painting seems insufficient.

To sum up, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer has to provide evidence such as whether the property values in Brookville has raised significantly. In addition, without ruling out other possibilities that may contribute to the increase in property values of Brookville, the very solution offered by this argument seems to be lack of persuasion. Also, we need to know whether restrictions on landscaping and housepainting are sufficient enough.

loryshuangUID: 2211255

In this argument, the arguer suggests that Deerhaven Acres (DA) should adopt own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting to imitate Brookville whose average property values seems to increased after the they applied their restrictions. However, after careful scrutiny, I find the evidence the arguer presents lend little support to this argument.

In the first place, the argument fails to provide sufficient statistics and evidence to show whether the average property values of Brookville has really boomed and tripled. The arguer claims that average values have tripled in Brookville. However, he/she fails to provide the previous statistics of the property values before they have tripled. In this sense, it is very likely that the original property values of Brookville are extremely low, less than one fifth of that of DA. Even if the values have tripled, it is still not in an ideal situation. 我个人认为这个论诉不是很有力,把他放到第一个攻击的目标显得很弱.Moreover, the average property values of this area have raised does not mean the total property values of most part of this area have0 increased. Perhaps, only several houses, less than 10 percent of the total number, has a huge range inclination while other part of this area even has its property values declined slightly. 这一点很好,应该提前If this really happened, the action that DA should follow Brookville's footprints has little credibility.这句话我觉得可以不要吧,嘿嘿:rolleyes:

Moreover, even if Brookville has had its property values ascend; it is doubtable that whether this benefit should be attributed to its restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. Common sense informs us that, there are many alternatives that contribute to a increase in property values such as enhancement of the whole economic environment, increase of safety assurance of the total area, and the new favorable regulations enacted in this community. For instance, perhaps Brookville is beach town which mostly attract old and retired people to live in. Naturally, what the retired people concern seems to be more about whether this town is quiet enough for resting, whether the environment is polluted which might somewhat threatens their health, or whether this community is safe to live in, rather than the pattern of housepainting and landscaping. The former factors might dominantly affect their decision to buy a house there.

Finally, even DA community adopted the restrictions imitating landscaping and house painting which, after all, are justified as the most important factors leading to the inclination of property values, the future of its property values in this area is still obscured and undetermined.  As we know, Brookville has its restrictions enacted seven years ago. It's doubtable that whether the buyers of the houses still appreciated such housepainting and landscaping and regard it as top priority. 这句很好,阿宝很用心啊!The buyers of DA may be cleverer. Maybe, they begin to notice more about the interiors of the house. In this sense, only focusing on landscaping and house painting seems insufficient to attract the people now  .

To sum up, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer has to provide evidence such as whether the property values in Brookville has raised significantly. In addition, without ruling out other possibilities that may contribute to the increase in property values of Brookville, the very solution offered by this argument seems to be lack of persuasion. Also, we need to know whether restrictions on landscaping and housepainting are sufficient enough.

[ 本帖最后由 loryshuang 于 2006-7-16 20:47 编辑 ]

loryshuangUID: 2211255

语言上我觉得挺好的,我是没有什么好改的.
就是如果上逻辑上安排再好一点就完美了.
如果少写一点就来得及了,好像有点废话啊:vomit:
但是我看大虾说,argument写到400左右就够了:D
所以不要太担心啊!

helenlhhUID: 2127690

阿宝要注意战略调整了，argument不用写那么多字，要写我不反对，但你得时间跟得上呀。你现在虽然写的不错，分析也很详细，但是上考场30分钟首先要考虑写的完整性。保证那道基本分。这样才不会再考场上失败。打字速度还是又提高余地的，不过argument我还是建议写得精炼一些。

首先点明主要错误，至于后面的展开，说清楚就行，像你的第一个论证段，反复说来说去，说得我都有点摸不着头脑了。适当删减一下，表达一定要清楚明了，一段里面不要写太多东西。