argument2 jingjingtous作业（kito战队）

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 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 作者没有提供充分证据表明Brookville的地价上涨是因为restriction,其它原因……
2 即使是也，也只能说明七年前的情况，不代表现在restriction仍然起作用。
3 错误类比，没有考虑Brookville和DA 的样本差异（两地的交通状况，经济发展等）
4 没有考虑restriction的可行性以及可能带来的不利影响。
In this letter, the committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres(DA) recommends that they should implement the same restriction on landscaping and housepainting in order to increase the average property values in DA. To support this recommendation the committee cites the fact that average property values in Broodville have tripled after they carried out a set of restrictions. This argument is fraught with dubious assumptions, which render it completely unconvincing.

To begin with, the committee unjustifiably assumes that the restrictions of landscaping and housepainting are responsible for the increase of average property values in Brookville. Yet the committee provides no evidence that this is the case. It is highly possible that new business thrived in Broodville and brought numerous investments. Or, perhaps the local government encourages the development of tourism and many wealthy people chose Brookville for living. For that matter, perhaps the environment and public services in Brookville were grandly improved and attracted more people settled there. As a result, the increase need for housing leads to the increase of average property values. Without ruling out such and other possibilities, the committee cannot persuader me based on the dubious assumption.

Even assuming that the restriction in Broodville resulted in the increased property values seven years ago, the committee cannot substantiate that it keeps affecting it nowadays. Perhaps the restrictions have been outdate and became ineffective on the property values, or perhaps the values declined concerning the poor economy in Broodville. Without accounting for the change of these factors that might influence the house price, the committee's assertion that the restriction remains its functions on the property values is open to doubt.

Secondly, the committee commits a false analogy that the restriction increase Broodville's property values would have the same effects in DA. However, the committee overlooks the significant differences that might affect the result of the restrictions in DA. It is highly possible that the transportation in Broodville is more convenient than DA, or perhaps houses for living or working became insufficient for the rapidly increased population in Broodville. Without considering and ruling out these factors, the committee cannot convince me that the property values in DA will increase after the implement of the restriction.

Last but not the least, the committee has not taken into account the feasibility of the restrictions. It is entirely possible that some homeowners in Broodville are reluctant to paint their home with some particular colors. The more enforced the restriction, the more complaint the local homeowners.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing in several respects as it stands. To strengthen it the committee should provide clear evidence that the restrictions, not some other factors, are attributable to the increase of property values in Broodville, and that they remain function on the two areas are essentially the same.

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-25 at 02:06 ]

智恩UID: 2160717

In this letter, the committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres(DA) recommends that they should implement the same restriction on landscaping and housepainting in order to increase the average property values in DA. To support this recommendation the committee cites the fact that average property values in Broodville have tripled after they carried out a set of restrictions. This argument is fraught with dubious assumptions, which render it completely unconvincing.

To begin with, the committee unjustifiably assumes that the restrictions of landscaping and housepainting are responsible for the increase of average property values in Brookville. Yet the committee provides no evidence that this is the case. It is highly possible that new business thrived in Broodville and brought numerous investments. Or, perhaps the local government encourages the development of tourism and many wealthy people chose Brookville for living. For that matter, perhaps the environment and public services in Brookville were grandly improved and attracted more people settled there. As a result, the increase need for housing leads to the increase of average property values. Without ruling out such and other possibilities, the committee cannot persuader（persuade） me based on the dubious assumption.

Even assuming that the restriction in Broodville resulted in the increased property values seven years ago, the committee cannot substantiate that it keeps affecting it nowadays. Perhaps the restrictions have been outdate（d） and became ineffective on the property values, or perhaps the values declined concerning the poor economy（depression in economy） in Broodville. Without accounting for the change of these factors that might influence the house price, the committee's assertion that the restriction remains its functions on the property values is open to doubt.

Secondly, the committee commits a false analogy that the restriction increase Broodville's property values would have the same effects in DA. However, the committee overlooks the significant differences that might affect the result of the restrictions in DA. It is highly possible that the transportation in Broodville is more convenient than DA, or perhaps houses for living or working became insufficient for the rapidly increased population in Broodville. Without considering and ruling out these factors, the committee cannot convince me that the property values in DA will increase after the implement of the restriction.

Last but not the least, the committee has not taken into account the feasibility of the restrictions. It is entirely possible that some homeowners in Broodville are reluctant to paint their home with some particular colors. The more enforced the restriction, the more complaint the local homeowners.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing in several respects as it stands. To strengthen it the committee should provide clear evidence that the restrictions, not some other factors, are attributable to the increase（increasing） of property values in Broodville, and that they remain function on the two areas are essentially the same.

1 全篇都是Broodville，而题上是Brookville，仔细点哦！
2 总的还是不错，继续加油！

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

谢谢你的点评，以后不会犯这种错误了，呵呵

[ Last edited by jingjingtous on 2005-12-25 at 23:16 ]