ARGUMENT2 [再战GRE小组]第一次作业 by wanglinnk

wanglinnkUID: 2429794

Argument 2

The argument suffers from several critical fallacies. The arguer recommended Deerhaven Acres (DA) to imitate Brookville community’s successful experience but the reasons he presented are not sufficient and he ignores the difference between the two areas.

First, there is no evidence to show the reason that B community’s increase in property values is attributed to the restriction on landscaping and housepainting. Without ruling out these alternatives, it is impossible to conclude that B's tripled property values are caused by their regulations. Many other factors may be associated. For example, the commercial environment—if B is a prosperous place where marshals a lot of companies and shopping malls, the property values are certainly increased; or B is a booming traffic hub, the frequent economic trades will have effect on the property values.

Even assuming that the restriction on landscaping and housepainting is the main reason that leads to the increase of B’s property values, the biggest flaw is whether there exist similarities between DA and B. Maybe DA’s condition is entirely different from B. Considering the regional difference, B is probably such a small community that the restriction is easy to conduct and the landscaped yards and the homes which have been painted the same kind of color would be very beautiful. On the contrary, DA is a large region and difficult to administer, in this case the effect will be apparently not good since the monotonic homes may make people feel antipathy.

Another factor has to be taken into consideration is the time. The restriction was taken in B seven years ago at which time the restriction was applicable. However, there are changes here and there; after seven years things will be different. People may pursue variety; the accordant exterior is probably out of date. Possibly the property values rose with the consumption level.

In sum, the DA can’t imitate B community’s experience completely, or at least the arguer should take out sufficient evidence to prove that they will succeed if he takes this action. In addition, he should listen to the residents’ recommendations, survey DA’s condition, and calculate how much the increase will be, or he can’t force residents to accept the restriction.

[ 本帖最后由 wanglinnk 于 2007-12-11 12:46 编辑 ]

zhouwanqiu5UID: 2446439

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-789777-1-1.html
我们互拍我们同一天考
后面还有我的ISSUE

zhouwanqiu5UID: 2446439

我回复的修改的文章在哪里我怎么看不到，是在你信箱里吗
我对这里怎么用不熟悉

eustaciaUID: 175283

The argument suffers from several critical fallacies. The arguer recommended Deerhaven Acres (DA) to imitate Brookville (B) community’s successful experience but the reasons he presented are not sufficient and he ignores ignored句子当中时态要一致 the difference differences between the two areas.

First, there is no evidence to show the reason that why B community’s increase in property values is attributed to the restriction on landscaping and housepainting alone. Without ruling out these 改成other alternatives, it is impossible too hesitating to conclude that B's tripled property values are caused by their regulations. Many other factors may be associated. For example, the commercial environment—if B is has become a prosperous place where marshals a lot of companies and shopping malls, the property values are would certainly increased increase; or B is has become a booming traffic hub, the frequent economic trades will have effect on the property values.

Even assuming that the restriction on landscaping and housepainting is the main reason that leads to the increase of B’s property values, the biggest flaw is whether there exist similarities between DA and B. Maybe DA’s condition is entirely different from B. Considering the regional difference, B is probably such a small community that the restriction is easy to conduct and the landscaped yards and the homes which have been painted the same kind of color would be very beautiful. On the contrary, DA is a large region and difficult to administer, in this case the effect will be apparently not good effective since the monotonic homes may make people feel antipathy.

Another factor has to be taken into consideration is the time. The restriction was taken in B seven years ago at which time the restriction was might be applicable. However, there are changes here and there; after seven years things will be different. People may pursue variety; the accordant exterior is probably out of date. Possibly the property values rose with the consumption level.

In sum, the DA can’t imitate B community’s experience completely, or at least the arguer should take out sufficient evidence to prove that they will succeed if he takes this action. In addition, he should listen to the residents’ recommendations, survey DA’s condition, and calculate how much the increase will be, or he can’t force residents to accept the restriction.