Argument2 高频 第四篇谢谢您拍！有拍就回// 求互改

jackloveUID: 183611

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: 384          TIME: 0:40:00          DATE: 2004-2-20
Revised: 3.2日 420words
========================================
The arguer contends that homeowners should adopt our set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support the argument, the author points out that average property values have tripled after homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted set restrictions on landscaping and house painting. This argument is logically flawed in several critique respects.

First of all, the arguer fails to rule out the causal relationship between restrictions and the rising average property. It is entirely possible that other factors may make average property values rise, such as well environment, convenient transportation, and high quality of house. Or perhaps the local government constructed a highway or subway to facilitate the citizens. In any event, the arguer cannot conclude that raise in the property values of house results from a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted.

Secondly, even if a set of restrictions in Brookville lead to raising of average property values, that is to say, that a set of restriction seven years ago succeed in Brookville, the arguer fails to provide an evidence that now our own set of restrictions that we adopt on landscaping and house painting can will be succeed. As we knew, the success of plan on project could depend on many factors, such as economy, government relevant policy, and satisfaction of people, all of which was ignored by arguer. For example, the restrictions can conform to local economic conditions in Brookville. And residents in Brookville do not have much money to paint and landscape so as to support the restrictions. Moreover, government also provide with a lot of money to bolster the plans. Before ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me that the set of restrictions will be effective in Deerhaven Acres.

Finally, the arguer overlooks other factors that help raise the average property values. It is entirely possible that we can construct more grass ground and plant more trees to make environment beautiful. Perhaps government can provide more public service, such as supermarket, hospital, and parks. These factors all may result in the raise of average property values.

To sum up, the argument exist many problems that undermine the conclusion. To solidify the conclusion, the arguer should provide evidence that the causal relationship between the property values and the restrictions, information about two towns. To better assess the argument, the arguer would need to provide information about the possible result of the restrictions in Deerhaven Acres.

xuehuihopeUID: 2154365

互拍
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

xuehuihopeUID: 2154365

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: 384          TIME: 0:40:00          DATE: 2004-2-20
Revised: 3.2日 420words
========================================
The arguer contends that homeowners should adopt our set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support the argument, the author points out that (a) the verage property values have tripled after homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted set restrictions on landscaping and house painting. This argument is logically flawed in several critique respects.

First of all, the arguer fails to rule out the causal relationship between restrictions and the rising average property. It is entirely possible that other factors may make average property values rise, such as well environment, convenient transportation, and high quality of house. Or perhaps the local government constructed a highway or subway to facilitate the citizens. In any event, the arguer cannot conclude that raise in the property values of house results from a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted.

Secondly, even if a set of restrictions in Brookville lead to raising of average property values, that is to say, that a set of restriction seven years ago succeed in Brookville, the arguer fails to provide an evidence that now our own set of restrictions that we adopt on landscaping and house painting can will be succeed. As we knew, the success of plan on project could depend on many factors, such as economy, government relevant policy, and satisfaction of people, all of which was ignored by arguer. For example, the restrictions can conform to local economic conditions in Brookville. And residents in Brookville do not have much money to paint and landscape so as to support the restrictions. Moreover, government also provide with a lot of money to bolster the plans. Before ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me that the set of restrictions will be effective in Deerhaven Acres.

Finally, the arguer overlooks other factors that help raise the average property values. It is entirely possible that we can construct more grass ground and plant more trees to make environment beautiful. Perhaps government can provide more public service, such as supermarket, hospital, and parks. These factors all may result in the raise of average property values.

To sum up, the argument exist many problems that undermine the conclusion. To solidify the conclusion, the arguer should provide evidence that the causal relationship between the property values and the restrictions, information about two towns. To better assess the argument, the arguer would need to provide information about the possible result of the restrictions in Deerhaven Acres.
写的挺好的, 语言也不错, 我觉得没有什么问题!
呵呵 比我写的好!

[ 本帖最后由 xuehuihope 于 2006-3-2 15:44 编辑 ]

jackloveUID: 183611

噗噗噗，我去帮你看了

提点意见吧~~~~要不  我会骄傲的~~~~

还是给点冷水的说

gloriousUID: 2117311

as we knew最好改成as is known，最好以局外人的角色来批判argument，字数差点，词汇差点。
也批一下我的吧
TOPIC: ARGUMENT97 - The following appeared in a memo from the manager of television station KICK.

"A nationwide survey reveals that a sizeable majority of men would like to see additional sports programs on television. After television station WACK increased its sports broadcasts, its share of the television audience in its viewing area almost doubled. To gain a larger audience share in our area, and thus increase company profits, KICK should also revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage."
WORDS: 416          TIME: 0:29:00          DATE: 2006-3-1

In the rendered memo the speaker partially constructs his ramshackle speech that KICK should also revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage as the WACK did, according to my opinion, on the foundation of several controversial inferences which surely defy the argument itself, as my following enumeration. 1) The nationwide survey indeed reveal the fact that a sizeable majority of men would like to see KICK's programs after the so-called revision. 2) The well-behaved increase of WACK's sports broadcasts contribute to a doubled amount of audience in its viewing area and KICK will enjoy the same bloom, too. 3) The revision of its broadcast schedule can definitely lead to the increased company profits. These conclusions or proposals are illogically deduced from the alleged evidence circumscribed within the memo, which I'll adequately disprove below.
To begin with, one major reason for my contradiction is that the nationwide survey referred to can only evince men's significant enthusiasm, if any, towards additional sports programs on TV, rather than some specifically described sports broadcast as the speaker suggested. It is necessarily probable that men may exclusively incline to watch live games, discussion or dialogue about sports, and thus, without further investigation, no one can assure the means of alleged revision can result in the ascending profits of KICK.
Moreover, as another chink in the armor, whether the increased sports broadcasts can benefit WACK also has nothing to do with KICK, even though they mimicking the exact way of WACK. Firstly, if the doubled audience's amount does root in increasing the sports broadcasts' frequency is ungrounded yet. After all, coincidence cannot necessarily reveal cause-effect relationship. Secondly, considering the disparate circumstance between those two stations such as different popularity in audience and prominent features, KICK can still probably fail even tracking down the WACK's way.
Ultimately, presuming the foregoing conclusions convincing, the assertion that KICK's profits will definitely proliferate remains unsubstantiated, too. Evidently, common sense inculcates me that while we talk about profits, expenditure should be fundamentally involved into consideration, which is oblivious by the speaker.
In sum, unless the speaker consummates rectifying the equivocations enumerated before and clarifying existent controversies, I'll keep suspecting contentions he erected. Accordingly, to renovate the memo, as my suggestion, more evidence should be rendered to corroborate the assertion that increased sports broadcasts lead to the bloom of WACK, and even more essentially comes in mind the collation between the two stations. A specific investigation about the programs people most like is also important.

jackloveUID: 183611

修改稿
Revised: 3.2日  Second-revised: 3.9日
====================================
The arguer contends that homeowners should adopt our set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support the argument, the author points out that average property values have tripled after homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted set restrictions on landscaping and house painting. This argument is logically flawed in several critique respects.

First of all, the arguer fails to rule out the causal relationship between restrictions and the rising average property. It is entirely possible that other factors may make average property values rise, such as well environment, convenient transportation, and high quality of house. Perhaps the local government constructed a highway or subway to facilitate the citizens. Or perhaps houses in Brookville community are the high quality ones. These possibilities people might care about make the average property values rise. The arguer fails to provide these information.

Secondly, even if a set of restrictions in Brookville lead to raising of average property values, that is to say, that a set of restriction seven years ago succeed in Brookville, the arguer fails to provide an evidence that now our own set of restrictions that we adopt on landscaping and house painting can will be succeed. As we knew, the success of plan on project could depend on many factors, such as economy, government relevant policy, and satisfaction of people, all of which was ignored by arguer. For example, the restrictions can conform to local economic conditions in Brookville. And residents in Brookville do not have much money to paint and landscape so as to support the restrictions. Moreover, government also provide with a lot of money to bolster the plans. Before ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot convince me that the set of restrictions will be effective in Deerhaven Acres.

Finally, the arguer overlooks other factors that help raise the average property values. It is entirely possible that we can construct more grass ground and plant more trees to make environment beautiful. Perhaps government can provide more public service, such as supermarket, hospital, and parks. These factors all may result in the raise of average property values.

To sum up, the argument exist many problems that undermine the conclusion. To solidify the conclusion, the arguer should provide evidence that the causal relationship between the property values and the restrictions, information about two towns. To better assess the argument, the arguer would need to provide information about the possible result of the restrictions in Deerhaven Acres.