argument2 [GREAW]小组 5号同学第5次作业

clubranranUID??2362938

题目：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."
字数：414          用时：0:30:00          日期：2007-8-10

In this argument, the arguer recommends that all the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres (DA) should make a set of restrictions to landscape and paint the house for raising property values. To support this conclusion, the arguer provides some evidences to prove the view. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

The major problem of this argument is that the arguer fails to provide convinced evidence to let us believe that the raised property values of Brookville due to the restriction of fitment of the houses and yards. There must be so many factors that contribute to the values. It is true that the uniform managing of the fitment may save a lot of money, which may be a reason of the increase of values. However, average property values would not have tripled only by the uniform managing. The savings in some other places may also make the value increased, such as water, electricity, gas and so on. We can strongly cast doubt on whether the restrictions make the values increased.

Furthermore, even if the main cause of the increased values is the restrictions on fitment of the yards and house, we should not make the conclusion that it is good for DA to follow the lead of Brookville. The arguer does not compare these two towns in any aspect. Maybe the tradition of fitment in DA is much better than Brookville, so that there is no necessary to adopt the set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. What's more, in order to raise property values in DA, there must be many other more effective methods which are ignored by the arguers.

Last but not least, it is too hasty for the arguer to make the conclusion that it may be a good method to learn from another town's policy which happened seven years ago. Seven years is a period that long enough to make the world changed enormously. That is to say, even if adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting indeed a good way to increase the property values, we can not make sure that how much the value can be made through such a antique policy. Even more, it is also a problem on whether this method is still practicable.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cites in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains and the illation of the arguer is out of all reason.

suyueUID??2181126

题目：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."
字数：414          用时：0:30:00          日期：2007-8-10

In this argument, the arguer recommends that all the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres (DA) should make a set of restrictions to landscape and paint the house for raising property values. To support this conclusion, the arguer provides some evidences to prove the view. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.

The major problem of this argument is that the arguer fails to provide convinced evidence to let us believe that the raised property values of Brookville due to the restriction of fitment of the houses and yards. There must be so many factors that contribute to the values. (要提出要素，只说观点不论证很不好)It is true that the uniform managing of the fitment may save a lot of money, which may be a reason of the increase of values. However, average property values would not have tripled only by the uniform managing. The savings in some other places may also make the value increased, such as water, electricity, gas and so on. (水，电， 气属于消耗品和房价有关吗？就算是改造线路你也每具体说啊)We can strongly cast doubt on whether the restrictions make the values increased.

Furthermore, even if the main cause of the increased values is the restrictions on fitment of the yards and house, we should not make the conclusion that it is good for DA to follow the lead of Brookville. The arguer does not compare these two towns in any aspect. Maybe the tradition of fitment in DA is much better than Brookville, so that there is no necessary to adopt the set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. What's more, in order to raise property values in DA, there must be many other more effective methods which are ignored by the arguers. （同上你只说了观点而且是新的没论证，忽略的是什么？不说你怎么反驳啊。而且用忽略新方法的说法十分不好，你的任务是反驳作者的这种方法你没提别的方法，如果你提了就必须论述这个方法，然后你就写成ISSUE了----跑题。。不论述就是不完整的议论，所以在ARGUMENT里千万不要建立东西）

Last but not least, it is too hasty for the arguer to make the conclusion that it may be a good method to learn from another town's policy which happened seven years ago. Seven years is a period that long enough to make the world changed enormously. That is to say, even if adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting indeed a good way to increase the property values, we can not make sure that how much the value can be made through such a antique policy. Even more, it is also a problem on whether this method is still practicable.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cites in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains and the illation of the arguer is out of all reason.