argument2 [清凉夏日一组作业贴]

helenlhhUID: 2127690

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: 353          TIME: 0:28:48          DATE: 2006-7-17

In this argument, the arguer recommands Brookcille's act seven years ago as the way to solve Deerhaven Acres's problem. He provides evidence that after the set of restricetion, Brookville's property values tripled. In my analysis, the argument is full of illogical assertion.

The arguer, firstly, falls into the false analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven. Situations in the two place might differs greatly which may diverse their property value in some degree. The arguer provide no evidence to show us that these two communities are totally similar in every condition. It is possible that Brookville lies in the center of the city where people are longing for and Deerhaven is in suburb where the property value may not be so high even if they follow the act by which Brookville succeeded.

Secondly, the arguer simply claims that the increase of propety value should totally contribute to the set of restrictions. It is possible that other factors which are more important than these restrictions that brought about in prosperity of proverty value, which is neglected by the arguer. It might be the case that during that time, many new companies were set up in Brookville community and the need for landscape increased rapidly. Other possible occasions might exist, for example, that property value in Brookville increased were due to the economical inflating seven years ago. Besides, even if the restrictions were established, it is still in doubt that whether it was carried out by most of the homeowners.

Thirdly, even if these restrictions played a vital role in increasing Brookville's property values, situations seven years ago is quite different from now.The arguer fails to see that after several years of development, the standards for land property value might be much higer than it was seven years ago. And people's tastes towards the outlooking of houses may be quite different from before. Following Brookville's example seven years ago might not be a wise decision.
Thus, homeowners in Deerhaven should find out other effective ways to solve the problem.

To sum up, the argument is unsubstantiated for several logical flaws. In order to make this argument more convincing, the arguer shoule provide more evidence to show that the restrictions are the only effort that contribute to the prosperity of Brookville's property values and the situations in Deerhaven is the same with Brookville seven years ago. Not untill the arguer provide more evidence to support his assertion can we agree with him on this problem.

PsychocandyUID: 171159

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: 353          TIME: 0:28:48          DATE: 2006-7-17

In this argument, the arguer recommands Brookcille's act seven years ago as the way to solve Deerhaven Acres's problem. He provides evidence that after the set of restricetion, Brookville's property values tripled. In my analysis, the argument is full of illogical assertion[复数assertions].

The arguer, firstly, falls into the false analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven. Situations in the two place might differs greatly which may diverse[diverse是形容词] their property value in some degree. The arguer provide[provides] no evidence to show us that these two communities are totally similar in every condition. It is possible that Brookville lies in the center of the city where[定语从句要用which，不是地点状语从句，不能用where] people are longing for and Deerhaven is in suburb where the property value may not be so high even if they follow the act by which Brookville succeeded.

Secondly, the arguer simply claims that the increase of propety value should totally contribute to the set of restrictions. [contribute用的不对，改成only the set of restrictions contributed to the increase in property value，或者改成the increase in property value should be totally attributed to the set of restrictions] It is possible that other factors which are more important than these restrictions that[that去掉] brought about in prosperity of proverty value, which is neglected by the arguer. It might be the case that during that time, many new companies were set up in Brookville community and the need for landscape increased rapidly.[这里的alternative reasons感觉不清晰，新公司的出现造成的地价上升是个比较好的他因，但是the need for landscape increased rapidly这里没看懂] Other possible occasions might exist, for example, that property value in Brookville increased[were前面改成一个动词，比如the fact that property value in Brookville increased，或者the increase in Brookville’s property value] were due to the economical inflating[inflation] seven years ago. Besides, even if the restrictions were established, it is still in doubt that whether it was carried out by most of the homeowners.[我感觉既然是restrictions，是一种law或者rule，按照西方文化就应该是被比较好地执行，这点可以不反驳。]

Thirdly, even if these restrictions played a vital role in increasing Brookville's property values, situations seven years ago is quite different from now.The arguer fails to see that after several years of development, the standards for land property value might be much higer than it was seven years ago. And people's tastes towards the outlooking of houses may be quite different from before. Following Brookville's example seven years ago might not be a wise decision.
Thus, homeowners in Deerhaven should find out other effective ways to solve the problem.[这个案例里没有提到有什么problem，只是想改进，或者解释一下problem，说the problem of low property value in Deerhaven]

To sum up, the argument is unsubstantiated for several logical flaws. In order to make this argument more convincing, the arguer shoule provide more evidence to show that the restrictions are the only effort that contribute to the prosperity of Brookville's property values and the situations in Deerhaven is the same with Brookville seven years ago. Not untill the arguer provide more evidence to support his assertion can we agree with him on this problem.

helenlhhUID: 2127690

谢谢psychocandy，帮我指出这么多错误！:)