Argument2 【CSMY作文互改小组】第四次作业

candyganUID: 201665

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."
七年前，附近的Brookville社区的业主实施了一系列关于该社区的庭院应如何布置以及房屋应涂何种颜色的规定。从那以后，Brookville的地产平均价格翻了三番。为使Deerhaven Acres的地产升值，我们也应该对于景观和房屋涂色实施自己的规定。
         DATE: 2007-01-12

The notion that to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, the homeowners there should adopt ther set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting is obviously a conclusion of this argument. However, just citing an evidence seven years ago from nearby Brookville's, this conclusion cannot convince people the benefits of the restrictions and subsequently there must be a raise of property values.

1、攻击restrictions不能导出prices上升的结果。他因法：如因修建大学引起的
First of all, the argument fails to evident that the set of restrictions on decoration is the mere cause of the tripled average property values in Brookville. During the seven years, there may be lots of things changed in Brookville and the changed factors may contribute more (compared with the restrictions) to the increased average property values. For example, a new campus of a university had been built nearby Brookville seven years ago. Since then, the demand on renting house by college students and the coming-along newly built stores made the price of real there increased. Without evidence that there is no other changes--which seems more responsible for the increased average property values--happened in Brookville, the argument cannot convince us that the set of restrictions is the mere cause of tripled average property values.

2、攻击七年前的经验在现在不管用。地产市场趋势在两个年份不同。
Secondly, the experience of seven years from nearby community cannot ensure the same tripled price today. It is likely that seven years ago, the market of property was warming up, and the property values everywhere were increased. However, at the time of this year, the real prices have failed down due to the newly-brought policy on real market. Thus, the argument can hardly draw the conclusion on a seven-years-ago evidence without given some essential information, such as the trend of real market, on both two times.

3、攻击两个地区缺乏可比性。社区布局，周边环境位置不同。
Finally, it maybe suitable for the Brookville community nearby to adopt the restriction whereas may not suitable for Deerhaven Acres. Since the argument have not introduce any important information on the locations and environmental conditions between the two community, there may be a big road nearby Brookville, while Deerhaven may be located between a river and a mountain and the river is the boundary of Brookville and Deerhaven. Also, the Brookville’s integrated design (which is much better than Deerhaven’s) makes the decoration suitable. Yet for Deerhaven, it just seems ridiculous to paint as the same of Brookville’s. Therefore, for Brookville, painting the houses may attract the traveler’s eyes and make real businessmen pay more attention to it, but for Deerhaven, painting can neither make the whole design more attractive nor make sense to real businessman. Thus, the argument should provide such essential information, which will greatly influence the property prices, on both communities.

In conclusion, the argument should give more significant information on how the set ofrestrictions mentioned lead to a tripled property prices of Brookville and why the experience from Brookville seven years ago is also suitable for Deerhaven Acres today. Otherwise, the argument cannot hold water.