Argument2 by ADHD

ADHDUID: 2308787

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: 466          TIME: 0:37:51          DATE: 2007-06-12

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. Obviously the statement contains several questionable aspects. First, the rationality and sufficiency of the inference about the tripled values is open to question. Additionally, the statement fails to examine the situation seven years ago and now. It also presumes a correlation signify a casual relationship between B and D.

In the first place the author failing to consider other possible alternatives to the tripled values in B. Such alternative may include the fact that the population of B was increased among the seven years surprisingly, and this caused the high demanding of the apartment but not those restrictions. Perhaps their country was the developing country and the government didn't put into practice the planned parenthood well, when that just was the population peak period, just like 1940's in China. In addition, author failed consider the other possibility. Perhaps B was coastal city and just at that time it developed very fast, then the price of houses are trending upwards in B. It appears reasonable, therefore all of this caused the high price of the apartment and then average property has tripled in B.

In the second place, even consuming that such restriction is the real reason of the tripled value, a seven year is so long time for the author to inference that such situation will happen again in the same place. Perhaps residents' preference of the house type has been changed. It is highly possible that among the seven years the DIY became the hottest issue in B, a large percentage of the resident like DIY house than before. This may include the house position, color, size and so on. Obviously the situation now may largely different from seven years ago.

In the third place, even consuming that such restriction in B have perfectly succeed in B, it dose not mean it will happen again in D. Author must consider other element of the marketing. It is possible that the most popular type of the house is entirely different among D and B. Maybe D is developed city of the coast and it was the most luxury city in their country, just like Shang Hai in China, in contrast B is the inside outback province which is not rich enough. If so, most of the rich families in D want to buy luxury villa which is far from centre of the city while the cheep apartment is popular in B. So the inference that the same boom of the house marketing will happen again in D is presumptions.

To sum up, the argument seems logical as presented above since the author offered some relevant evidences. However, before any final decision are made about how raise property values in D, the author should evaluate all possible alternatives.


终于凑出来一片了. 字数有点不够
谢谢斑竹～

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-6-13 13:25 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

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: 466          TIME: 0:37:51          DATE: 2007-06-12

The argument is well presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. Obviously the statement contains several questionable aspects.(两句话一个意思而且很笼统, 可以去掉一句) First, the rationality and sufficiency of the inference about the tripled values (概述太泛, 如果要说完整就得把作者的因果逻辑说出来, 这样表达没什么意义) is open to question. Additionally, the statement fails to examine the situation seven years ago and now.(The statement takes the situation as a reference to currency, which may lead to temporal diversity and thus make it invalid. 模版的问题, 表达不精确, 除了7年这个概念这句话里其它的内容都没有信息量) It also presumes a correlation signify a casual relationship between B and D.(正式写作不要用首字母简写一个单词, 而且B和D也不是casual relationship, 是generalization)
(LZ的开头很成问题, 虽然试图把文章的信息都概括出去, 但表达的并不准确, 建议研究下北美范文的ARGU看下作者怎么概括几种特定错误的, 分析下ARGU中的错误分类, 不是什么错误都能随便找个模版就套进去的)

In the first place the author failing to consider other possible alternatives to the tripled values in B.(so what? 论证要完整, 说明了有它因以后要说这样作者的因果就不一定成立) Such alternative may include the fact that the population of B was increased among the seven years surprisingly, and this caused the high demanding of the apartment but not those restrictions. Perhaps their country was the developing country and the government didn't put into practice the planned parenthood well, when that just was the population peak period, just like 1940's in China. (它因的叙述很混乱, 语言上太随意了, 还很意识流的来个just like 1940s China..老外知道1940s的时候中国房地产是怎么样的么? 这种类比没什么意义. 你同时举出这些它因, 它们就处在一个并列的层面上, 因此在语言上也应该尽量做到并列, 这样才能使文章的结构清晰流畅) In addition, author failed consider the other (another) possibility. Perhaps B was coastal city and just at that time it developed very fast, then the price of houses are trending upwards in B.(跟前两个一起说好了, 这个也没什么特殊的, 没必要单拿出来写个the other) It appears reasonable, therefore all of this caused the high price of the apartment and then average property has tripled in B.(So the restrictions may be too superficial and wane to cause the increased estate value, making the author's reasoning unsound. 论证完整)

In the second place, even consuming (assuming) that such restriction is the real reason of the tripled value, a seven year is so long time for the author to inference that such situation will happen again in the same place (作者没说同一位置, 如果你怕这里削弱之后的让步条件可以不写这个). Perhaps residents' preference of the house type has been changed.(不要一直perhaps, 适当对情况做出推测比单纯的猜测有用的多: Fashions, social economy and public aethetic values can change rapidly in 7 years, so we may suspect....) It is highly possible that among the seven years the DIY became the hottest issue in B, a large percentage of the resident like DIY house than before. This may include the house position, color, size and so on.(这个跟restriction有什么关系? 把逻辑说完整) Obviously the situation now may largely different from seven years ago.(最后一句在重复前面的话, 没意义)

In the third place, even consuming that such restriction in B have perfectly succeed in B, it dose not mean it will happen again in D. Author must consider other element of the marketing. It is possible that the most popular type of the house is entirely different among D and B. Maybe D is developed city of the coast and it was the most luxury city in their country, just like Shang Hai in China, in contrast B is the inside outback province which is not rich enough. If so, most of the rich families in D want to buy luxury villa which is far from centre of the city while the cheep apartment is popular in B. So the inference that the same boom of the house marketing will happen again in D is presumptions.(整段都没有提到restriction的影响和这种因素跟作者的论证的关系, 跑题严重: D有钱能买别墅B买公寓跟它们刷漆种树有什么关系? D靠海跟规定它们住宅外观受限有什么关系? 既然已经说了D的成功来源于RESTRICION, 那么你的论证就得围绕这种限制在B未必有用来说, 而不是如此泛泛地说两地的差异, 这种差异即使存在也不能削弱作者的论证)

To sum up, the argument seems logical as presented above since the author offered some relevant evidences. However, before any final decision are made about how raise property values in D, the author should evaluate all possible alternatives.

总评: LZ的ARGUMENT问题主要在论证方向不清楚, 你到底要攻击作者的什么结论? 作者有什么论据? 该怎么攻击? 写的时候一定要时刻带着这些问题去审视题目, 研究分论点, 提出论据, 而不是单纯地列举一堆可能性, 这些可能性能不能驳倒作者才是组织论证的根本目的.