argument2 （kito组）辛苦大家了，谢谢！

智恩UID: 2160717

2.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."

提纲：1 七年前的情况和现在区别很大。
2B地和D地情况可能不同。
3B地当时地价翻3倍，可能是其他原因导致的。（当时房地产市场好；）
4即使是那些原因导致了B地房价的上涨，完全照搬也是不切实际的。
正文：
In this argument the author concludes that residents of Deerhaven Acres should adopt the set of restriction on landscaping and house-painting in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this recommendation, the author cites a case showing that homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions to the colors of the exteriors of homes and the way of landscaping the community’s yards. Moreover this restriction made the Brookville’s average property values tripled. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, yet reveals that none of them could lend credible support to the author’s claim.

To begin with, the author fails to consider that things are changing every time. The case the author cited happened seven years ago. Many factors which could influence the price of property have changed. For instance, the contemporary market of property is different from the one before seven years. Perhaps the houses were high in demand seven years ago and therefore the price of houses tended to increase. In addition maybe the government 颁布 policy which is favored for increasing property values. Thus without accounting for these alternatives and ruling out these possibilities it is untenable to draw a conclusion that the set of restriction adopted by Brookville contributes to the tripled property values in Brookville.

Secondly, the author commits a fallacy that the circumstances of Brookville are similar to Deerhaven’s. The author unfairly assumes that as long as the house owners of Deerhaven adopt the policy of Brookville, the property values of Deerhaven could inevitably increase as the Brookville’s. In fact the author neglects that different locations have different situations and need adopt unique policy that is appropreiate for its circumstance. Absent of the evidence of other factors which may have impact on the price of houses, it is hasty to generalize the efficiency of adopting the restriction of Brookville to Deerhaven Acres.

What is more, this argument lacks evidence to substantiate the causal relationship between adoption of restriction policy in Brookville and the tripled property values. Adoption of the house restriction policy is one of reasons for the tripled property values. It is entirely possible that a large scale of shopping-more had been built during that time. So it is more convenient for residents to perchase things. Such factors all could have impact on the property values. Therefore without considering these factors, the fact the author cites could not lend any support to the conclusion.

Finally, even if the restriction policy of Brookville contributes to the tripled property values, that  the community of Deerhaven imitates that restriction policy without any amendment is ineffective. Without considering the local condition of Deerhaven and analyzing the true benefits of that restriction policy, it is too hasty for the author to reach that conclusion.

To sum up, this argument is logically flawed and therefore lacks of credibility as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide statistics to demonstrate the causal relationship between the restriction policy of Brookville and the tripled property values. Moreover to better evaluate this argument the author should show us that the similarity of the two locations and the market conditions are similar to that of seven years ago.

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

智恩 不好意思 我上午考四级 下午还要上新东方 所以得晚上才给你改了 真的很抱歉

智恩UID: 2160717

总之有事说一声就好了。

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

正文：
In this argument the author concludes that residents of Deerhaven Acres should adopt the set of restriction on landscaping and house-painting in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To demonstrate the effectiveness of this recommendation（很好的变换）, the author cites a case showing that homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions to the colors of the exteriors of homes and the way of landscaping the community’s yards. Moreover this restriction made the Brookville’s average property values tripled. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, yet reveals that none of them could lend credible support to the author’s claim. （好）

To begin with, the author fails to consider that things are changing every time(continuously changing). The case the author cited happened seven years ago. Many factors which could influence the price of property (may) have changed. For instance, the contemporary market of property is different from the one before seven years. Perhaps the houses were high in demand seven years ago and therefore the price of houses tended to increase. In addition maybe the government 颁布(make就行了吧, 不是有个词叫policymaker么) policy which is favored for increasing property values. Thus without accounting for these alternatives and ruling out these possibilities it is untenable to draw a conclusion that（值得借鉴） the set of restriction adopted by Brookville contributes to the tripled property values in Brookville.

Secondly, the author commits a fallacy that the circumstances of Brookville are similar to Deerhaven’s. The author unfairly assumes that as long as the house owners of Deerhaven adopt the policy of Brookville, the property values of Deerhaven could inevitably increase as the Brookville’s. In fact the author neglects that different locations have different situations and need adopt unique policy that is appropriate for its circumstance. Absent of the evidence of other factors which may have impact on the price of houses, it is hasty to generalize the efficiency of adopting the restriction of Brookville to Deerhaven Acres.

What is more, this argument lacks evidence to substantiate the causal relationship between adoption of restriction policy in Brookville and the tripled property values. Adoption of the house restriction policy is one of reasons for the tripled property values. It is entirely possible that a large scale of shopping-more had been built during that time. So it is more convenient for residents to perchase things. Such factors all could have impact on the property values. Therefore without considering these factors, the fact the author cites could not lend any support to the conclusion.

Finally, even if the restriction policy of Brookville contributes to the tripled property values, that  the community of Deerhaven imitates that restriction policy without any amendment is ineffective. Without considering the local condition of Deerhaven and analyzing the true benefits of that restriction policy, it is too hasty for the author to reach that conclusion. （这点有点牵强，文中本来就没说benefit的事情啊，只是说raise values 而已，这点可以不批了）

To sum up, this argument is logically flawed and therefore lacks of credibility as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide statistics to demonstrate the causal relationship between the restriction policy of Brookville and the tripled property values. Moreover to better evaluate this argument the author should show us that the similarity of the two locations and the market conditions are similar to that of seven years ago.
智恩的文章结构非常好，没什么可挑剔的，思路也很清楚。写的真好^-^