argument2 [Jet]小组第一次作业

Daniel_youngUID: 2433824

argument2 [Jet]小组第一次作业

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: 450         TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-29

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws the conclusion that in order to enhance Deer haven property values, homeowners should follow   certain restrictions concerning their homes' exterior appearance. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out the evidence that average property values have tripled in Brookville since the owners adopted a set of restrictions. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection review that omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument. In my view the argument suffers from three logic flaws.

The threshold problem with this argument is that average property values have tripled in Brookville since the restrictions were adopted. Perhaps the restrictions were not implemented; or perhaps a small number of the Brookville homeowners at last implemented the restrictions. Lacking dearer evidence that whether most of the homeowners in Brookville had finally implemented these restrictions or not the author cannot expect us to take seriously the claim that these restrictions were responsible for the increased property values.

Another problem that weakens the logic of this argument is that if the owners in Deer haven Acres followed the restrictions made by Brookville homeowners, their property values would be profitable. Perhaps potential Deer haven home-buyers might be less interested in a home’s color both exterior and interior; or perhaps they even do not care about the yards. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible explanations for the distinction cited, the author cannot easily conclude that different places taken the same restrictions would carry a similar result.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw involved in this argument is that rising property values are attributable to these restrictions. Admittedly, these methods maybe can enhance the property values. However, this evidence, in itself, does not suffice to prove that these restrictions are the only way or the main way for the raising property values. It is entirely possible that one or more other factors were instead responsible for the increase, such as the traffic or the weather. In short, without more convincing evidence the author cannot convince me that the property values will also profitable in Deer haven Acres.

In sum, the arguer fails to strengthen the conclusion that homeowners in Brookville implemented these restrictions, because the evidence cited in this argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing the author would have to provide more information with regard to the restrictions were responsible for the raising property values. If the argument had included there given factors discussed above the argument would be more thorough and logically acceptable.

huangli711UID: 2451421

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 house painting."
WORDS: 450         TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-29

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws the conclusion that in order to enhance Deer haven property values, homeowners should follow   certain restrictions concerning their homes' exterior appearance. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out the evidence that average property values have tripled in Brookville since the owners adopted a set of restrictions. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection review that omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument. In my view the argument suffers from three logic flaws.

The threshold problem with this argument is that average property values have tripled in Brookville since the restrictions were adopted. Perhaps the restrictions were not implemented; or perhaps a small number of the Brookville homeowners at last implemented the restrictions. Lacking dearer evidence that whether most of the homeowners in Brookville had finally implemented these restrictions or not the author cannot expect us to take seriously the claim that these restrictions were responsible for the increased property values.

Another problem that weakens the logic of this argument is that if the owners in Deer haven Acres followed the restrictions made by Brookville homeowners, their property values would be profitable. Perhaps potential Deer haven home-buyers might be less interested in a home’s color both exterior and interior; or perhaps they even do not care about the yards. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible explanations for the distinction cited, the author cannot easily conclude that different places taken the same restrictions would carry a similar result.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another failing involved in this argument is that rising property values are attributable to these restrictions. Admittedly, these methods maybe can enhance the property values. However, this evidence, in itself, does not suffice to prove that these restrictions are the only way or the main way for the raising property values. It is entirely possible that one or more other factors were instead responsible for the increase, such as the traffic or the weather. In short, without more convincing evidence the author cannot convince me that the property values will also profitable in Deer haven Acres.

In sum, the arguer fails to strengthen the conclusion that homeowners in Brookville implemented these restrictions, because the evidence cited in this argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing the author would have to provide more information with regard to the restrictions were responsible for the raising property values. If the argument had included there given factors discussed above the argument would be more thorough and logically acceptable.


因为对于argument的了解不是很多，所以不敢妄加评论，但是就我所看，逻辑处理没得说，但是restriction这一个词，从头用到了尾，如果适当的换一下，会好很多。

LITTERBOULDERUID: 2367811

Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws the conclusion that in order to enhance Deer haven property values, homeowners should follow   certain restrictions concerning their homes' exterior appearance. To substantiate the conclusion, the author points out the evidence that average property values have tripled in Brookville since the owners adopted a set of restrictions. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection review that omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument（这个从句是修饰substantial concerns，既然是substantial concerns，为何还要加强？）. In my view the argument suffers from three logic flaws.

The threshold problem with this argument is that average property values have tripled in Brookville since the restrictions were adopted. Perhaps the restrictions were not implemented; or perhaps a small number of the Brookville homeowners at last implemented the restrictions（两句话的意思好像有些接近，第一句话太模糊了）. Lacking dearer（clearer） evidence that whether most of the homeowners in Brookville had finally implemented these restrictions or not the author cannot expect us to take seriously the claim that these restrictions were responsible for the increased property values.

Another problem that weakens the logic of this argument is that if the owners in Deer haven Acres followed the restrictions made by Brookville homeowners, their property values would be profitable. Perhaps potential Deer haven home-buyers might be less interested in a home’s color both exterior and interior; or perhaps they even do not care about the yards. Without considering and ruling out these and other possible explanations for the distinction cited, the author cannot easily conclude that different places taken(taking,我也不是很确定，本人语法不好) the same restrictions would carry a similar result.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw involved in this argument is that rising property values are(is，整体做主语) attributable to these restrictions. Admittedly, these methods maybe can enhance the property values. However, this evidence, in itself, does not suffice to prove that these restrictions are the only way or the main way for the raising property values. It is entirely possible that one or more other factors were instead responsible for the increase, such as the traffic or the weather. In short, without more convincing evidence the author cannot convince me that the property values will also profitable in Deer haven Acres.

In sum, the arguer fails to strengthen the conclusion that homeowners in Brookville implemented these restrictions, because the evidence cited in this argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincing the author would have to provide more information with regard to the restrictions were(去了) responsible for the raising property values. If the argument had included there given factors discussed above the argument would be more thorough and logically acceptable.
红色部分是修改的：不好意思，argument我写了才三篇，水平有限，望指正
蓝色部分是值得学习的，你能30分钟内写成这样，强，佩服