argument2 [kb9.11] 第5次作业

perfumedewUID: 2381489

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."

In the argument, the author concludes that Deerhaven Acres should adopt its own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting so as to raise property values. To substantiate the recommendation, the arguer cites a example of Brookville community. However, the statement is specious and flawed on several grounds as below.

To begin with, the argue narrated Brookville community's successful sample of increasing property values by enacting a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. However, the author's position precludes other possible causes of property rising.  Maybe Brookville community precipitates the embellishment of  environment and thus fascinates considerable travelers there to enjoy a beautiful scene. It is also possible that the overall level of economics escalated and furthered the property values in Deerhaven Acres. Absent more backgrounds of Brookville community, it is impossible to assert that the restrictions are the exclusive impulse of raising property values.

Even assuming that the set of restrictions led to the rising of the property values of Brookville community, the arguer also makes an unfair comparison between Brookville community and Deerhaven. He ignores the differences between the two communities. Chances are that it is a variety of patterns of the buildings in Deerhaven that enthralls tens of thousands of exotic tourists and keeps property value at a high level. Conversely, if the measures are made, the property values will possibly immediately decline. Without comparisons in more fields, the conclusion seems hasty.

Thirdly, the author doesn’t provide information about the opinions of inhabitants in Deerhaven.  Likely, if the committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres takes the measure recommended by the author, the residents there will boycott the implement of restrictions because they prefer various styles of buildings. Without open and disinterested public poll, the arguer’s conclusion is arbitrary.

To sum up, the author's conclusion is problematic and lacks credibility. To better assess the argument, the arguer should provide concrete variance between two communities including culture, values, people's tastes and economic situation to make the assertion more thorough and adequate.

小猫儿UID: 2297873

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."

In the argument, the author concludes that Deerhaven Acres should adopt its own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting so as to raise property values. To substantiate the recommendation, the arguer cites a example of Brookville community. However, the statement is specious and flawed on several grounds as below.

To begin with, the argue narrated Brookville community's successful sample of increasing property values by enacting a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. However, the author's position precludes other possible causes of property rising.  (这样用两句话来说分论点当然可以，但是给我的感觉是不够一针见血，前边一句上来就给人感觉很罗嗦，可以把However那句放在前面 To begin with,the arguer's position precludes other possible causes.... by narrating that B community's successful sample ... .)Maybe Brookville community precipitates the embellishment of  environment and thus fascinates considerable travelers there to enjoy a beautiful scene. (, which gets the community into disorder holding back a great portion of consumers and has no benefits to the average property values here ...说两种可能当然很好，但不是扔在那就算，这个可能怎样使作者的论证不可信了？ )It is also possible that the overall level of economics escalated and furthered the property values in Deerhaven Acres（这点也是，继续写下去，这样放在那太单薄了）. Absent more backgrounds of Brookville community, it is impossible to assert that the restrictions are the exclusive impulse of raising property values.

Even assuming that the set of restrictions led to the rising of the property values of Brookville community, the arguer also makes an unfair comparison between Brookville community and Deerhaven. He ignores the differences between the two communities. Chances are that it is a variety of patterns of the buildings in Deerhaven that enthralls tens of thousands of exotic tourists and keeps property value at a high level. Conversely, if the measures are made, the property values will possibly immediately decline（为什么decline也要说出来，比如游人不喜欢）. Without comparisons in more fields, the conclusion seems hasty.（如果说一个可能的时候，就更要尽量把这个可能与你要证明的分论点尽可能的扯上关系，随便你编就行，一定要让推理过程丰满，才有说服力，问题还是在论证上面，要根据最蠢笨的逻辑一步一步说清楚）

Thirdly, the author doesn’t provide information about the opinions of inhabitants in Deerhaven.  Likely, if the committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres takes the measure recommended by the author, the residents there will boycott the implement of restrictions because they prefer various styles of buildings. Without open and disinterested public poll, the arguer’s conclusion is arbitrary.

To sum up, the author's conclusion is problematic and lacks credibility. To better assess the argument, the arguer should provide concrete variance between two communities including culture, values, people's tastes and economic situation to make the assertion more thorough and adequate.

结构比较清晰，问题只在每一段的论证上面，body的三段都犯了这个同样的毛病，也是大多数新手的通病，每次练习时记得让自己的论证慢下来，稳一点，加油哦~

prophetluoUID: 2240098

:) :) :) :) :) 楼主昨天 回屋子太晚了 没改作业...
今天看到高人 给出了评语 顿时...愣了...论证啊...痛苦啊

In the argument, the author concludes that Deerhaven Acres should adopt its own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting so as to raise property values. To substantiate the recommendation, the arguer cites a example of Brookville community. However, the statement is specious and flawed on several grounds as below.


To begin with, the argue narrated Brookville community's successful sample of increasing property values by enacting a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. However, the author's position precludes other possible causes of property rising.  Maybe Brookville community precipitates the embellishment of  environment and thus fascinates considerable travelers there to enjoy a beautiful scene. It is also possible that the overall level of economics escalated and furthered the property values in Deerhaven Acres. Absent more backgrounds of Brookville community, it is impossible to assert that the restrictions are the exclusive impulse of raising property values.


Even assuming that the set of restrictions led to the rising of the property values of Brookville community, the arguer also makes an unfair comparison between Brookville community and Deerhaven. (He ignores the differences between the two communities.)(这里改成从句如何?) Chances are that it is a variety of patterns of the buildings in Deerhaven that enthralls tens of thousands of exotic tourists and keeps property value at a high level. Conversely, if the measures are made, the property values will possibly immediately decline. Without comparisons (这里应该是动名词把)in more fields, the conclusion seems hasty.


Thirdly, the author doesn’t provide information about the opinions of inhabitants in Deerhaven.  Likely, if the committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres takes the measure recommended by the author, the residents there will boycott the implement of restrictions because they prefer various styles of buildings. Without open and disinterested public poll, the arguer’s conclusion is arbitrary.(这段不知道 算不算 是错误类比那类错误里面 呃....)


To sum up, the author's conclusion is problematic and lacks credibility. To better assess the argument, the arguer should provide concrete variance between two communities including culture, values, people's tastes and economic situation to make the assertion more thorough and adequate.

[ 本帖最后由 prophetluo 于 2007-8-20 09:43 编辑 ]