Argument2 【米国有米】小组 第二次作业,请猛批

ernest81888UID: 2247639

提纲
开头—让步式的开头
错误1---Causal oversimplification(执果索因)：因为B的价格翻了3倍，却认为一定是因为实施了相关的规定(可能因为绿化，治安，周边的环境变化等)
错误2—False Analogy ：因为B通过实施相关的规定，却认为D一定也会得到相关的价值效应
错误3---One-sidedness(片面性)：只考虑了实施相关规定的带来的好处，却没有考虑如果实施是否会带来负面影响。

In this argument, the author recommends that Deerhaven Acres should adopt its own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. This recommendation is based on the observation that Brookville community‘s average property values have tripled by adopting the restrictions. At first glance, the argument appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that suffers from at least 3 critical logic flaws.

Firstly, the arguer commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification in assuming that Brookville community’s tripled average property is required for its own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. While the restrictions might be an important element in determining the raised property value, it is hardly the only one. To establish a general causal relationship between the restrictions and its raised property value, other factor that could result Brookville’s increasing in value should be considered and eliminated. For examples, it is because the reasons that Brookville optimized the living circumstance like hiring more custodians thus giving the resident a safety and planting more greens as to clean the air or even transportation make it convenient for its resident. All that I mention above might lead to the result of Brookville’s property tripled in value. The author’s failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the restrictions render the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

Secondly, it is highly doubtful that the facts drawn from Brookville are applicable to the Deerhaven Acres. Differences between the two communities clearly outweigh the similarities, thus making the analogy highly suspect. For example, problems of safety assurance and satisfying transportation all affect Brookville but are virtually absent in Deerhaven Acres. Perhaps the critical thing DA should do first is not adopt the restriction but optimize other living condition facts. Problems such as these might present insurmountable obstacles the purpose of DA’s raising property values.

Thirdly, the speaker fails to consider the restriction’s benefits might bring. However this is not necessarily the case. In my view, the disadvantage of it also should not be overlooked. Perhaps B would have 5th times risen in property if it did not use the restriction in the layout of yarn and painting in house. It may turn out that the adopting restriction disadvantage far outweighs the advantages. Because the author’s argument lacks a complete analysis of the situation, the author’s forecast of benefits from adopting the restriction can not be taken seriously.

In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it the speaker must provide specific evidence that B’s community restriction is only element that attribute to its raising value. Also, in order to better assess the strength of his recommendation I would need more information about facts that correlation ship between A and B could make the logic of analogy work. It would also be helpful to make a complete investigation to find whether the advantage that B community’s restriction provide or not.

[ 本帖最后由 ernest81888 于 2006-11-24 22:02 编辑 ]

bluecathyUID: 2231215

In this argument, the author recommends that Deerhaven Acres should adopt its own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. This recommendation is based on the observation that Brookville community‘s average property values have tripled by adopting the restrictions. At first glance, the argument appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that [有些迷惑，似乎应该加一个it]suffers from at least 3 critical logic flaws[有些迷惑于你的意思].

Firstly, the arguer commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification in assuming that Brookville community’s tripled average property is required for its own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. While the restrictions might be an important element in determining the raised property value, it is hardly the only one. To establish a general causal relationship between the restrictions and its raised property value, other factor[factors] that could result [in] Brookville’s increasing in[increased] value should be considered and eliminated. For examples[example], [it is because the reasons that可去掉] Brookville optimized the living circumstance like hiring more custodians thus giving the resident a safety and[去掉，改成，] planting more greens as to clean the air[for making air clean] or[and] even[improve the local] transportation [to]make it [more] convenient for its resident. All that[what] I mention above might [also] lead to the result of Brookville’s property tripled in value. The author’s failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the restrictions [and] render the conclusion based upon it[its] highly suspect.

Secondly, it is highly doubtful that the facts drawn from Brookville are applicable to the Deerhaven Acres. Differences between the two communities clearly outweigh the similarities[语言不错], thus making the analogy highly suspect. For example, problems of safety assurance and satisfying transportation all affect Brookville but are virtually absent in Deerhaven Acres. Perhaps the critical thing DA should do first is not adopt[adopting] the restriction but optimize[optimizing] other living condition facts. Problems such as these might present insurmountable obstacles the purpose of DA’s raising property values.

Thirdly, the speaker fails to consider the restriction’s benefits[看了你后面的表达，觉得你这个词似乎用反了] might bring. However this is not necessarily the case. In my view, the disadvantage of it also should not be overlooked. Perhaps B would have 5th times risen in property if it did not use[perform] the restriction in the layout of yarn[yard] and painting in house. It may turn out that the adopting restriction disadvantage[disadvantages of the adopting restriction] far outweighs the advantages. Because the author’s argument lacks a complete analysis of the situation, the author’s forecast of benefits from adopting the restriction can not be taken seriously.

In sum, the recommendation is not well supported. To bolster it， the speaker must provide specific evidence that B’s community restriction is only element that attribute to its raising value. Also[Meanwhile], in order to better[挪到recommendation后面] assess the strength of his recommendation， I would need more information about facts that correlation ship between A and B could make the logic of analogy work. It would also be helpful to make a complete investigation to find [加上out]whether the advantage [of] that[that删除] B community’s restriction provide or not.

总体评价，思路清晰，表达流畅。

bluecathyUID: 2231215

不好意思 我暂时不会使用模版
其实关于语法的相关问题 我也很迷惑的 你这篇中有几处该是定语从句的that还是宾语从句的what我也拿不准 通过互改大家一起学习吧:)