Aero作文组第六次作业——Argument2提交

cindycqqUID: 2349702

请感兴趣的同学来指点。:loveliness:


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: 378          TIME: 00:30:09          DATE: 2008-1-14 20:48:16

The speaker draw the conclusion that the property value in Deerhaven Acres can be raised by adopting their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To come to this conclusion, the speaker cited that seven years ago, the average property values have tripled in Brookville, and the reason resulting in this change is assumed to be that 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. However, the logical fallacy in this argument leads to the unreliability of the conclusion.
First of all, the speaker provided no evidence to prove that Brookville's average property value tripled was caused by implementing new restrictions. It is highly possible that the macro economy arised in Brookville and which contributed to the average property value have tripled there. Considering this possibility, the relationship between the new restrictions on landscaping and housepaiting and property value's increasement appears unwarranted.
Secondly, the speaker ignored the change during seven years. What he/she stated about the fact in Brookville happened seven years ago. It is very risky to guarrantee there is no change during such long time. As a matter of fact, everything changes during seven years. Therefore, even if the relationship between restriction and the property value increasement in Brookville seven years ago is the case as the speaker analyzed, he/she has no reason to guarrantee things remain the same in contemporary day. Consequently, the conclusion based on this reason appears very unjustified.
Thirdly, the speaker stated that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepaiting. Yet, it is not the case. Because beforing this statement, the speaker talked about the restriction of Brookville. Nevertheless, the restriction of Deerhaven Acres' own has not been verified yet. How can it be ensured to apply well to the local situation? The speaker made an obvious logical fallacy here, which leads to the unstability of the conclusion.
In brief, the conclusion of this argument can not be safely drawn due to above stated logical fallacies and evidence flaw. To enhance it, the speaker is expected to use more reasonable comparision between Brookville and Deerhaven, and also avoid logical mistakes.

saavedroUID: 2423190

The speaker draw the conclusion that the property value in Deerhaven Acres can be raised by adopting their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To come to this conclusion???, {T}he speaker cited that seven years ago, the average property values have tripled in Brookville, and the reason resulting in this change is assumed to be that 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. However.  (这个长句写的漂亮，尤其是后面部分）The logical fallacy in this argument leads to the unreliability of the conclusion.
First of all, the speaker provided provides no evidence to prove(删除） that Brookville's average property value tripled was caused by implementing new restrictions. It is highly possible that the macro economy arised in Brookville（用得好！） and which contributed to the average property value have tripled there. Considering this possibility, the relationship between the new restrictions on landscaping and housepaiting and property value's increasement（哪有这个词？） appearing is unwarranted.
Secondly, the speaker ignored the change during seven years. What he/she stated about the fact in Brookville happened to seven years ago. It is very risky to guarrantee there is no change during such long time. As a matter of fact, everything changes during seven years. Therefore, even if the relationship between restriction and the property value increasement in Brookville seven years ago is the case as the speaker analyzed, he/she has no reason to guarrantee things(最好换一个词，这个词用的不合适，比如说 tendency) remain the same(不用这个，用 have remain unchanged) in contemporary day. Consequently, the conclusion based on this reason appears very unjustified.
Thirdly, the speaker stated that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepaiting. Yet, it is not the case. Because beforing this statement, the speaker talked about the restriction of Brookville. Nevertheless, the restriction of Deerhaven Acres' own has not been verified yet. How can it be ensured to apply well to the local situation? The speaker made an obvious logical fallacy here, which leads to the unstability of the conclusion.
In brief, the conclusion of this argument can not be safely drawn due to above stated logical fallacies.（结尾写的太草率了）


不过是限时写作，这也不错啦、

m2zhyUID: 2440721

The speaker draws the conclusion that the property value in Deerhaven Acres can be raised by adopting their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To come to this conclusion, the speaker cited that seven years ago, the average property values have tripled in Brookville, and the reason resulting in this change is assumed to be that 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. However, the logical fallacy in this argument leads to the unreliability of the conclusion.

First of all, the speaker provided no evidence to prove that Brookville's average property value tripled was caused by implementing new restrictions. It is highly possible that the macro economy arised(?raised?) in Brookville and(去掉) which contributed to the average property value have(去掉) tripled there. Considering this possibility, the relationship between the new restrictions on landscaping and housepaiting and property value's increasement(用increase就可以啦) appears unwarranted.

Secondly, the speaker ignored the change during seven years. What he/she stated about the fact in Brookville happened seven years ago.(第一遍读到这句话的时候还以为只写了半句呢，回头再看，才发现是完整的一句。这句话头重脚轻了，考虑换下吧，或者写的更饱满些。) It is very risky to guarrantee(guarantee) there is no change during such long time. As a matter of fact, everything changes during seven years. Therefore, even if the relationship between restriction and the property value increasement(increase) in Brookville seven years ago is the case as the speaker analyzed, he/she has no reason to guarrantee(guarantee) things remain the same in contemporary day. Consequently, the conclusion based on this reason appears very unjustified. (这一段的驳论力度较上段显得弱多了，而且中间的思路断断续续的，整段论证中，似乎只有中间的那句“As a matter of fact, everything changes during seven years.”是作为论证在支持主题句。而紧接其后的让步句不像是在论证，更像是另外一个主题句，甚至我觉得，如果拿这个让步句来做这段的主题句，可能会更好些，因为它做了很好的承上启下。)

Thirdly, the speaker stated that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepaiting. Yet, it is not the case. Because beforing(?) this statement, the speaker talked about the restriction of Brookville. Nevertheless, the restriction of Deerhaven Acres' own has not been verified yet.(这句偏离主题句了) How can it be ensured to apply well to the local situation? The speaker made an obvious logical fallacy here, which leads to the unstability of the conclusion.(段落中真正有力支持主题句的就只有一句：How can it be ensured to apply well to the local situation? 之前的两句关于关于Brookville的论述，并不能很好的支持主题句。或者说，搂主没有说明白Brookville的措施对于Deerhaven实施类似的措施到底有什么关系。只是简单一笔带过说没有参考价值，那么是不是应该在为什么没有参考价值上论述的饱满些呢？)

In brief, the conclusion of this argument can not be safely drawn due to above stated logical fallacies and evidence flaw. To enhance it, the speaker is expected to use more reasonable comparision(comparison) between Brookville and Deerhaven, and also avoid logical mistakes.

总评：
       首先，可以肯定的是，作为限时作文，这篇还是很不错的。
       其次，建议楼主在发帖前把文章粘帖到word里面，检查一下拼写错误，也算是对互改组友的一点负责任的态度吧。毕竟大家互改的目的是为了互相学习，一起提高，总是费时间在小毛病上(如：拼写错误)，相信每个人都不是很情愿的——每个人的时间都是宝贵的啊。
       最后，对于通篇文章，三个攻击点很准，但比较欠缺的是论证的深度，感觉文章太模板话，实质的内容比较欠缺。语言的运用上还是比较好的。
       建议：楼主重点抓一下如何充实论证段，尤其是深入分析问题方面，比如第一个论证段就比下面两个要深刻的多。




[ 本帖最后由 m2zhy 于 2008-1-19 12:17 编辑 ]