Argument140【SWEETBOX小组】第二次作业 by Ma Yi Ming

mym1102UID: 2326718

感觉结尾写的不好，请高手指教
好像又把introduction 写得太长了，老毛病了。

======================Argument 2==================

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."

In this argument ,the arguer recommends that Deerhaven Acres should adopt a set of restriction on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted as their neighboor community Brookville do in order to raise property values .To justify this claim ,the arguer provides the evidence that the average property values have tripled in Brookville which adopted the set of restriction since seven years ago.A careful examination of this argument would reveal how goundless this the conclusion is.
       First of all ,the argument commits a fallacy of false anology.Brookville and Deerhaven Acre may have so many difference in traffic,religion,structure of ecomics that adopting the same stategy of raising values may lead distinct consenquence.It is very likely that Brookville is a touring city with attracting historic place or natural landscape while Deerhaven Acres is a industrial city which is supported by its plastic product.Having a set of restriction to decorate the landscape would merely help to raise values in Deerhaven Acres.
       Secondly even if Deerhaven Acres is the same of almost every aspect with Brookwille,the conclusion is still unconvincing,because we lack the information of how average property values in Deerhaven Acres have raised since seven years ago.Maybe the raise in Deerhaven Acres is much greater than it is in Brookville.In that case we may recommend that Brookville should abandon the set of restrictions .
       In addition, the average property values may raise due to various reason.Good administration,investigation of foreign company or holding a big game would accelerate the raise.Therefore the arguer need to bring more evidence to substantiate the only reason of raise in property value is the doption of the set of restriction.
       To sum up ,the recommendation lacks credibility because the arguer failed to establish a causal relationship between adopting of the set and the raising property value.To strengthen the argument ,the arguer would have to explore more details on how the set of restriction works and its effect on the raise.



[ 本帖最后由 mym1102 于 2007-6-8 11:09 编辑 ]

wzhfutureUID: 2264867

In this argument ,the arguer recommends that Deerhaven Acres should adopt a set of restriction(s) on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted as their neighboor community Brookville do(did) in order to raise property values .To justify this claim ,the arguer provides the evidence that the average property values have tripled in Brookville which adopted the set of restriction since seven years ago.A careful examination of this argument would reveal how goundless this the conclusion is.
       First of all ,the argument commits a fallacy of false anology.Brookville and Deerhaven Acre may have so many difference in traffic,religion,structure of ecomics that adopting the same stategy of raising values may lead(to) distinct consenquence.It is very likely that Brookville is a touring city with attracting historic place(s) or natural landscape while Deerhaven Acres is a industrial city which is supported by its plastic product.Having a set of restriction to decorate the landscape would merely help to raise values in Deerhaven Acres.
       Secondly even if Deerhaven Acres is the same of (in)almost every aspect with Brookwille,the conclusion is still unconvincing,because we lack the information of how average property values in Deerhaven Acres have raised since seven years ago.Maybe the raise in Deerhaven Acres is much greater than it is in Brookville.In that case we may recommend that Brookville should abandon the set of restrictions .(感觉没必要说对方该咋样,说我们不该这样旧行乐)
       In addition, the average property values may raise due to various reason.Good administration,investigation of foreign company or holding a big game would accelerate the raise.Therefore the arguer need to bring more evidence to substantiate the only reason of raise in property value is the doption(adoption) of the set of restriction.
       To sum up ,the recommendation lacks credibility because the arguer failed to establish a causal relationship between adopting of the set and the raising property value.To strengthen the argument ,the arguer would have to explore more details on how the set of restriction works and its effect on the raise.