Argument2【07-10G Superstar大帖】第五次作业 by Huaxinluobo

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

time 30

In this argument the committee suggest that DA should apply a set of restrictions to raise property values . To get support , the fact of near Brookville is given to show that a set of restrictions about the yards and colors of exteriors of homes can increase the property values. However, after scrutiny I find it suffers from a few flaws.

Firstly , the committee unfairly assume that the restrictions is the only reason of the increased value , but no evidence is given to prove it and other factors in determining the value may exist. For example , maybe it is the population increase that lead to the tripled price, or because the surrounding environment have been improved significantly , or because some government policy favor the region . All this elements can lead to the increase of the value and no direct evidence has been showed to convince that the restrictions have a positive effect . Perhaps the same style and color of yards make the price lower than it should .Moreover, since time pasts, the function of the restriction may changed in the 7 years .Even it is effective years ago, it may not be as effective as before now . So , without more evidence , it is too hasty to assume the effect of restrictions.

Secondly , the committee draws a false analogy between the Brookville and DA by ignoring the differences . For example , maybe house buyer in DA cares more about nature sights , or maybe they do not like some uniformed style and color but arbitrary yards .If it is the case , even if the restriction can directly influence the price in Brookville, it is likely that the restrictions may not have the same function but in stead , decrease the value . Thus, unless the committee can justify that people who will buy house  have similar preference in Brookville and DA, the conclusion can not be convincing.

Finally , the committee get the conclusion to hastily without consideration of other elements that determine the property value. Even if the restriction may result in the increase of the price , negative effect from other elements may diminish it. Consider , if commercial situation in DA goes down and people’s income decrease, if environment condition social security deteriorate , if tax rate increase , then the value may decrease , in contrary to the committee’s expectation . So , in order to make the conclusion more convincing , more information about DA are needed.

To sum , the conclusion is not persuasive for the flaws I mentioned above . To better support it the committee need to bring more evidence to prove that restrictions is beneficial to the value and that other elements will favor but not offset the effect.

laura001UID: 2295927

In this argument the committee suggests that DA should apply a set of restrictions to raise property values . To get support , the fact of near Brookville is given to show that a set of restrictions about the yards and colors of exteriors of homes can increase the property values. However, after scrutiny I find it suffers from a few flaws.

Firstly , the committee unfairly assumes that the restrictions is the only reason of the increased value , but no evidence is given to prove it and other factors in determining the value may exist. For example , maybe it is the population increase that lead to the tripled price, or because the surrounding environment have been improved significantly , or because some government policy favor the region（两个ＯＲ，最好具体前后变化） . All this elements can lead to the increase of the value and no direct evidence has been showed to convince that the restrictions have a positive effect . Perhaps the same style and color of yards make the price lower than it should .Moreover, since time pasts, the function of the restriction may changed in the 7 years .Even it is effective years ago, it may not be as effective as before now . So , without more evidence , it is too hasty to assume the effect of restrictions.

Secondly , the committee draws a false analogy between the Brookville and DA by ignoring the differences . For example , maybe house buyer in DA cares more about nature sights , or maybe they（你前面是单数，后面怎么变ＴＨＥＹ？？？） do not like some uniformed style and color （复数）but arbitrary yards .If it is the case , even if the restriction can directly influence the price in Brookville, it is likely that the restrictions may not have the same function but in stead ,（加个连接词）decrease the value . Thus, unless the committee can justify that people who will buy house  have similar preference in Brookville and DA, the conclusion can not be convincing.

Finally , the committee get the conclusion to hastily （？）without consideration of other elements that determine the property value. Even if the restriction may result in the increase of the price , negative effect from other elements may diminish it. Consider , if commercial situation in DA goes down and people’s income decrease, if environment condition social security deteriorate , if tax rate increase , then the value may decrease , in contrary to the committee’s expectation . So , in order to make the conclusion more convincing , more information about DA are needed.

To sum , the conclusion is not persuasive for the flaws I mentioned above . To better support it the committee need to bring more evidence to prove that restrictions is beneficial to the value and that other elements will favor but not offset the effect.


总体上还不错，在３０分钟写这样，呵呵;d: 鼓励下～～～

第３错误和第１错误是不是有点重合？第１错误讲限制这些并不是提高房价的唯一原因；第３个错误决定房价还有其他的因素．重合了吧～

[ 本帖最后由 laura001 于 2007-6-13 18:27 编辑 ]

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

的确是重复，写得时候也是没办法这样的，没找到太明显的第三个错误，看看别人的再说