Argument2 Thrive小组第1次作业

vic_rainUID: 2304309

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: 427          TIME: 00:50:22         DATE: 2008-2-2 18:03:01

This letter recommended that homeowners in Deerhaven Acres(DA) should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order toraise property values in DA. To justify this recommendation, the author point out that average property values had raised as much as triple times , and it was just because of homeowners of Brookvile(B) adopting restrictions on landscaping and housepainting seven years ago. Nevertheless, close scrutiny of this argument reveals several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that property values had improved indeed, and it was just because of adoption of the restrictions. It is entirely possible that average property values in any other communities had a much more high improvement than B at that time, or B would raise more sharply without adopting these restrictions. In addition, even if property value in B had truly improved, and the restrictions may be also an important factor, it is hardly the only one. Any other positive contributing factors, such as general economic recovery, and unexpected increase in house requirements, might account for the consequence as well, or more. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author can not rely on them to assert the forward property values in B and it was just because of the restrictions.

Secondly, the author relies on the assumption that all other conditions possibly affected B's property values remains unchanged during the seven-year period. Such conditions include overall balance between house quantity and requirement, and local economic development, and so on. Therefore, changes of either of these conditions are likely to determine the average property values in B. If so, these restrictions used to help enhance B's property values is likely to undermine property values instead as the other conitions changed.

Thirdly, the author has failed to consider the physical appearance and current property values of the two different areas. Perhaps geographical terrain determines that landscaping and housepainting in DA should remain as it has been for avoiding earthquake and hurricane. Or perhaps homeowners in DA can not afford the comparatively expensive cost in landscaping, as the property values are already far more beyond the average values in other communities.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the author should give more evidence that property values in B was truly upgraded and it was just because of adoption of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, and the restrictions' positive effect on property values remains unchanged during the seven-year period. Moreover, to better evaluate this argument, the author should also supply more information about the feasibility and possibility for the same adoption of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting working well in DA according to B's success.

[ 本帖最后由 vic_rain 于 2008-2-3 02:05 编辑 ]

sbsUID: 2453499

This letter recommended that homeowners in Deerhaven Acres(DA) should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values in DA. To justify this recommendation, the author points out that average property values had raised as much as triple times(as much as three times, 或者直接用had tripled) , and it was just because of homeowners of Brookvile(B) adopting restrictions on landscaping and housepainting seven years ago(这句话把原因放到前面去吧，要不然average property的指代不明确，看到后面才发现是B而不是DA). Nevertheless, close scrutiny of this argument reveals several flaws, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that (B’s)property values had (indeed放这里)improved indeed  (, and it was删掉) just because of adoption of the restrictions. It is entirely possible that average property values in any(删) other communities had a much more high improvement than B at that time, or B would raise more sharply without adopting these restrictions(这个理由感觉牵强). In addition, even if property value in B had truly improved(原文中说的是B的房价本来就翻了三番，所以再even if 就不对了), and the restrictions may be also an important factor, it is hardly the only one(这里让步表达的太拐弯抹角了，the restriction might not be the only factor, though it is an important one). Any other positive contributing factors, such as general economic recovery, and(,和and怎么能连用)(改成which results in) unexpected increase in house requirements(and some other reasons具体说明), might account for(account for sth翻译为解释什么的原因，我觉得这里用lead to比较合适) the consequence as well, or more(这里more指的是什么？不明确，删掉). Without ruling out(ruling out感觉意思反了，改成without considering) such possibilities, the author can not rely on them to assert the forward property values in B and it was just because of the restrictions.(你的这个说法出现了很多次了，换一换)

Secondly, the author relies on(前面用了，换成bases on) the assumption that all other conditions possibly affected B's property values remains unchanged during the seven-year period. Such conditions include overall balance between house quantity and requirement, and(这个错误要注意，不能连用) local economic development(举点例子，比如人们购买力提高了，物价房价上涨，仅仅这样说显得太空洞，没有内容), and so on. Therefore,(这里与上一句话没有因果关系，therefore用的不是地方) changes of either of these conditions are likely to determine the average property values in B. If(为什么要if,删掉) so, these restrictions used to(used to 是过去常常的意思，表示被用来是be used to) help enhance B's property values is likely to undermine property values(改成it)instead(instead要么放前面，要么不要) as the other conditions changed.

Thirdly, the author has failed to consider the physical appearance and current property values of the two different areas.(此段为错误类比，至少应该提到false analogy) Perhaps geographical terrain determines that landscaping and house painting in DA should remain as it has been for avoiding earthquake and hurricane(house painting能用来预防地震和飓风？太牵强了吧). Or perhaps homeowners in DA can not afford the comparatively expensive cost in landscaping, as the property values are already far more beyond the average values in other communities.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To make it more logically acceptable, the author should give more evidence that property values in B was truly upgraded and it was just because of adoption of restrictions on landscaping and house painting, and the restrictions' positive effect on property values remains unchanged during the seven-year period(这里把作者的三个错误都列出来了，显得没有必要，挑两个重要的就行了). Moreover, to better evaluate this argument, the author should also supply more information about the feasibility and possibility for the same adoption of restrictions on landscaping and house painting working well in DA according to B's success.

从正文结构上来说，错误类比算是比较重要的错误，应放到正文前两段而不是最后一段，相反，七年时间则比起来不是那么重要，可以放到最后一段来攻击。
总的来说开头结尾都是模板还不错，正文部分逻辑性不是很好，说服力还不够。

[ 本帖最后由 sbs 于 2008-2-4 23:55 编辑 ]