argument02 我的第一篇哦,Kito(韩小King)

hzyj0322UID: 2155800

ARGUMENT02
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."

Argument2
提纲：
1.时间太长，那个时候的规定对于现在来说不一定适用。这期间可能有很多改变，比如说人的人们的喜好发生变化，那个时候人们喜欢已经装饰好的房子，因为方便，不用自己设计，而现在人们喜欢张扬个性，而不愿意遵守严格的规定。或者是城市规划发生了变化，七年前由于这个规定符合城市发展的需要而使得现在房价上涨，而现在这样做将可能不适合城市发展。

2.B地区的房价上涨可能是由于其它多种因素造成的，而与这种严格的规定没有必然的联系。比如说七年来B区的各种设施不断完善，社区服务有所改善，也可能是房屋质量每况愈下，相比来说B区的房屋质量显得更好。

3.即使离得很近，委员会也不应该忽视两地的实际差异。比如居民的文化程度，经济状况。或许是由于B地区居民的文化程度低，经济条件不好没有充分的精力和财力规划社区，所以委员会才会出台严格的规定。而D地区的居民文化程度比较高，有坚实的经济基础，愿意也有能力使自己的房屋更加个性化。因此照搬B地区的规定是不合理的，可能不会被D地区的居民所接受。

4.如果委员会要说服D地区的居民也能遵守相关的严格规定，那就要拿出足够的证据证明B地区房价的上涨与其相关规定有着直接的因果关系。并且证明这种因果关系在七年后的今天在D地区也同样使用。即使如此，委员会应该进行广泛的民意调查，来证实是D地区的居民是否自愿接受相关的规定，而不是强迫接受。


In this letter, the committee of Deerhaven Acres recommends that in order to raise property values in this area, the homeowners should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To support the recommendation, the committee points out the fact that seven years ago people in Brookvile community follow the restriction to landscape the yards and paint the exteriors of homes, and science then the average property values there tripled. However, the argument is problematic for three reasons with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

In the first place, it has been seven years since the restriction in Brookvile operated. The fact that happened seven years ago is not sound evidence to draw a conclusion that the restriction will benefit Deerhaven Acres as well. The committee assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different time. However, it is not clear in the letter whether the current conditions are the same as they used to be seven years ago. Perhaps seven years ago people are fond of the houses that have been painted for convenience with out landscaping it themselves. While present-day residents prefer individuation in their houses and yards thus are reluctant to accept the restrictions. And also maybe seven years ago the city is under rebuilding and the restriction in Brookvile just accorded with the policy, which is of invalidation now.

In the second place, the committee attempts to establish a causal relationship between two matters the restrictions and the tripled average property values. This argument, nonetheless, is based on an oversimplified analysis of the cause of the increasing in values of the property in Brookvile and the presumptuous correlation according is unacceptable. Actually, it is equally possible that the living conditions and public facilities become better during the seven years that caused the increasing in values or it is possible that there is a decline in house quality these years and the houses in Brookvile relatively have a better one which will also contribute a lot to the property values. Without ruling out such alternative explanations, the committee can not convince me that the restrictions necessarily result in the tripling of the property values in Brookvile.

In the third place, although nearby, the committee should not neglect the dissimilarities between the two communities. Analogies draw between Brookvile an Deerhaven Acres are highly suspect because there are many differences. For example the education and wealth background of the residence of the two areas. Perhaps people in Brookvile are of lower educational level and less wealth, who are unwilling and have not enough fund for landscaping, thus they prefer the restrictions from the committee. In reverse people in Deerhaven Acre of higher education and more wealthy are in favor of individuation who are reluctant to accept the restrictions. Thus it is absurd to force the restrictions on the residence without regarding their demands.

To sum up, the recommendation reached in the letter lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the committee claims. To make the recommendation more convincing, the committee should provide more information concerning the tripling in property values in Brookvile to better evaluate the recommendation. We need more concrete evidence that the restrictions contribute directly to the increasing in values which will also benefit Deerhaven Acres at present time. And even if the property would increase through housepainting and landscaping, surveys should be taken on the residence in Deerhaven Acres to show whether they are willing to accept the compulsory restrictions.

[ Last edited by hzyj0322 on 2005-12-24 at 02:48 ]

@amy@UID: 209096

In this letter, the committee of Deerhaven Acres recommends that in order to raise property values in this area, the homeowners should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To support the recommendation, the committee points out the fact that seven years ago people in Brookvile (Brookville) community follow (followed) the restriction to landscape the yards and paint the exteriors of homes, and science (since) then the average property values there tripled. However, the argument is problematic for three reasons with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

In the first place, it has been seven years since the restriction in Brookvile (Brookville) operated. The fact that happened seven years ago is not sound evidence to draw a conclusion that the restriction will benefit Deerhaven Acres as well. The committee assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different time. However, it is not clear in the letter whether the current conditions are the same as they used to be seven years ago. Perhaps seven years ago people are fond of the houses that have been painted for convenience and with out landscaping (need not to landscape改成这样是不是好点？) it themselves. While present-day residents prefer individuation in their houses and yards(,) thus are reluctant to accept the restrictions. And also maybe seven years ago the city is under rebuilding and the restriction in Brookvile (Brookville) just accorded with the policy, which is of invalidation(invalid) now.

In the second place, the committee attempts to establish a causal relationship between two matters (是不是要加that) the restrictions and the tripled average property values. This argument, nonetheless, is based on an oversimplified analysis of the cause of the increasing (increase) in values of the property in Brookvile (Brookville) and the presumptuous correlation according is unacceptable. Actually, it is equally possible that the living conditions and public facilities (加上have) become better during the seven years that caused the increasing (increase) in values or it is possible(是不是前面用it is possible，这里用it is equally possible好点) that there is a decline in house quality these years and the houses in Brookvile (Brookville) relatively have a better one (a better one好像表达不清楚啊) which will also contribute a lot to the property values. Without ruling out such alternative explanations, the committee can not (cannot) convince me (me? 应该是业主吧？) that the restrictions (加上will) necessarily(用在这里似乎不准确阿) result in the tripling of the property values in Brookvile (Brookville).

In the third place, although nearby (改成although Deerhaven Acres is near to Brookville), the committee should not neglect the dissimilarities between the two communities. Analogies draw (这里觉得也有点不妥) between Brookvile (Brookville) an (and) Deerhaven Acres are highly suspect because there are many differences. For example(, such as改成逗号，for example换成such as) the education and wealth background of the residence of the two areas. Perhaps people in Brookvile (Brookville) are of lower educational level and less wealth, who are unwilling and have not enough fund for landscaping, (Perhaps people in Brookville of lower educational level and less wealth are unwilling to afford landscaping, 不知道这样表达是否好点) thus they prefer the restrictions from the committee. In reverse(,) people in Deerhaven Acre (Acres) of higher education and more wealthy are in favor of individuation who are reluctant to accept the restrictions. Thus it is absurd to force the restrictions on the residence without regarding their demands.

To sum up, the recommendation reached in the letter lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the committee claims. To make the recommendation more convincing, the committee should provide more information concerning the tripling (triple) in property values in Brookvile (Brookville) to better evaluate the recommendation. We need more concrete evidence(evidences) that the restrictions contribute directly to the increasing in values which will also benefit Deerhaven Acres at present time(这样表达意思不明确). And even if the property (加上value) would increase through housepainting and landscaping, surveys should be taken on the residence (residents) in Deerhaven Acres to show whether they are willing to accept the compulsory restrictions.

提纲很详细，问题点也都找出来了，赞~
但是，语法拼写还是有问题，另外在句子的表达方法常常不会准确合适，还要再改进一下，加油~~

hzyj0322UID: 2155800

改得好详细啊!!~~,辛苦了,下面是修正版

In this letter, the committee of Deerhaven Acres recommends that in order to raise property values in this area, the homeowners should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To support the recommendation, the committee points out the fact that seven years ago people in Brookville community followed the restriction to landscape the yards and paint the exteriors of houses, and since then the average property values there tripled. However, the argument is problematic for three reasons with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted assumptions.

In the first place, it has been seven years since the restriction in Brookville operated. The fact that happened seven years ago is not sound evidence to draw a conclusion that the restriction will benefit Deerhaven Acres as well. The committee assumes without justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different time. However, it is not clear in the letter whether the current conditions are the same as they used to be seven years ago. Perhaps seven years ago people are fond of the houses that have been painted for convenience thus they need not to landscape the house themselves. While present-day residents prefer individuation in their houses and yards, thus are reluctant to accept the restrictions. And also maybe seven years ago the city is under rebuilding and the restriction in Brookville just accorded with the policy, which may become invalid now.

In the second place, the committee attempts to establish a causal relationship between the restrictions and the tripled average property values. This assumption, nonetheless, is based on an oversimplified analysis of the cause of the increase in values of the property in Brookville and the presumptuous correlation according is unacceptable. Actually, it is possible that the living conditions and public facilities have become better during the seven years that caused the increase in values or it is equally possible that there is a decline in house quality these years and the houses in Brookville relatively are of better quality which will also contribute a lot to the property values. Without ruling out such alternative explanations, the committee cannot convince anyone that the restrictions will  finally result in the tripling of the property values in Brookville.

In the third place, although Deerhaven Acres is near to Brookville, the committee should not neglect the dissimilarities between the two communities. Such as, the education and wealth background of the residence of the two areas. Perhaps people in Brookville are of lower educational level and less wealth, who are unwilling and cannot afford landscaping, (Perhaps people in Brookville of lower educational level and less wealth are unwilling to afford landscaping,@amy@de 意见表述的是住在B的低学历，穷的人不愿意~`，我的意思是B的人学历低，穷，所以不愿意~~~，该怎么表达呢？) thus they prefer the restrictions from the committee. In reverse, people in Deerhaven Acres of higher education and more wealthy are in favor of individuation who are reluctant to accept the restrictions. Thus it is absurd to force the restrictions on the residence without regarding their demands.

To sum up, the recommendation reached in the letter lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the committee claims. To make the recommendation more convincing, the committee should provide more information concerning the triple in property values in BBrookville to better evaluate the recommendation. We need more concrete evidences that the restrictions will also benefit Deerhaven Acres. And even if the property value would increase through housepainting and landscaping, surveys should be taken on the residents in Deerhaven Acres to show whether they are willing to accept the compulsory restrictions.

昨天写到一点多,头有点晕了，照着摸扳扒下来的,下次争取写好些

拼写,语法~````我写的时候太随意了,总是忽视细节~~

[ Last edited by hzyj0322 on 2005-12-25 at 01:32 ]