argument2 GOGOGO!几天没写了 汗。。

azaleaUID: 196122

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."

Outline
1Brookville community not necessarily implement the restriction.
2restriction is not the only factor accounting for rorerty value increase.
3weak comparison:Conditions in Deerhaven Acres may not be identical with those in Brookville.

In this argument, the author recommends Deerhaven Acres(DA) should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise property values. To bolster this recommendation, the author notes that since homeowners in nearby Brookville(BV) has adopted a set of restrictions regarding exterior appearance of houses, average property values have tripled there. A close scrutiny reveals several fallacies in the reasoning.

In the first place, the author provides no information whether BV residents have implemented the restriction and if so, what proportion of the whole population have done this. If a greater part of the houses are not painted and yards not landscaped according to the restriction, it would make no sense to further discuss the correlation of landscaping and property values. Therefore, the author has to show evidence that the restriction has been successfully carried out in BV.

Even if the residents in BV have implemented the restrictions, it is hasty to attribute the increase of property value to the restrictions exclusively before we examine other factors. Probably the jack-up of housing prices is the reflection of overall ecomonic condition which has endured inflation or drastic proliferation during the past seven years. Also it may result from an influx of employers into this region or construction of new shopping centers and entertainment facilities. Unless the author rules out the above possible reasons, we can assume he/she possibly mistakes a merely temporal relation for a cause-and-effect one between the restrictions and property values in BV.

Even if the enactment of the restrictions in BV really contribute to the rise of property values there, the same restrictions may not work in DA, since conditions in DA are likely to differ from those in BV. For example, the majority of potential house-buyers in BV may be retired workers who prefer an orderly and well-organized environment. However, house-buyers in AD may comprise mainly of young people with a inclination to diversity, therefore they are not interested in real estates under such restriction. In this sense, the property value may not raise in AD as the author assumes if restrictions are enacted there. Worse still, such restrictions may even drive away buyers with diversified taste.

All in all, the argument suffers the above fallacies and therefore needs improving. To convince us, the author should provide substantiated evidence to demonstrate the implementation of the restrictions in BV, the causal relationship between restrictions and price increase in BV, as well as the similarity of BV and AD.


413words 1hour

orange0770UID: 2122654

Outline
1Brookville community not necessarily implement the restriction.
2restriction is not the only factor accounting for rorerty （property）value increase.
3weak comparison:Conditions in Deerhaven Acres may not be identical with those in Brookville.

In this argument, the author recommends Deerhaven Acres(DA) should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise property values. To bolster this recommendation, the author notes that since homeowners in nearby Brookville(BV) has (去掉)adopted a set of restrictions regarding exterior appearance of houses, average property values have tripled there. A close scrutiny reveals several fallacies in the reasoning.

In the first place, the author provides no information （加个concerning ）whether BV (你确定这样简写可以吗？如果可以我以后也这么写了)residents have implemented the restriction and if so, what proportion of the whole population have done this. If a greater part (the majority) of the houses are not painted and yards not landscaped according to the restriction, it would make no sense to further discuss the correlation of landscaping and property values. Therefore, the author has to show evidence that the restriction (题目中用的是复数，和题目保持一致吧，而且你在其他地方也有用复数呢。)has been successfully carried out in BV.

Even if the residents in BV have implemented（换个词用用：apply to ） the restrictions, it is hasty to attribute the increase of property value to the restrictions exclusively before we examine other factors.（这句写得好！） Probably the jack-up （这词我还第一次见呢）of housing prices is the reflection of overall ecomonic condition which has endured inflation or drastic proliferation during the past seven years. Also it may result from an influx of employers （学习）into this region or construction of new shopping centers and entertainment facilities. Unless the author rules out the above possible reasons, we can assume he/she possibly mistakes a merely temporal relation for a cause-and-effect one between the restrictions and property values in BV.

Even if the enactment of the restrictions in BV really contribute to the rise of property values there, the same restrictions may not work in DA, since conditions in DA are likely to differ from those in BV. For example, the majority of potential house-buyers in BV may be retired workers who prefer an orderly and well-organized environment. However, house-buyers in AD may comprise mainly of（去掉, comprise 后面直接加名词） young people with a （an） inclination to diversity, therefore they are not interested in real estates under such restriction. In this sense, the property value may not raise in AD as the author assumes if restrictions are enacted there. Worse still, such restrictions may even drive away buyers with diversified taste.

All in all, the argument suffers the above fallacies and therefore needs improving. To convince us, the author should provide substantiated evidence to demonstrate the implementation of the restrictions in BV, the causal relationship between restrictions and price increase in BV, as well as the similarity of BV and AD.

你写得很好，论证都很有力，而且用词、造句很值得我学习。:)
你的第一个理由我没想到，值得借鉴。 :victory:

azaleaUID: 196122

我觉得BV和AD的缩写没什么问题 只要不影响理解就行了 毕竟应该把时间留给更重要的文字 我考试时就打算这么写了

而且报纸上一般都是专有名词第一次出现时用全称 之后都用缩写

不过我确实没见过别人这么用 不知官方认可不？
望知情者告之 thanks~

azaleaUID: 196122

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

7.Argu中常会出现很长的地名，有两种解决方案，第一用PP3中的cut和paste功能，第二是首字母缩写，用后者的时候我建议第一次出现该词请拼写完整，并用括号注明要缩写的形式如Mattulate (M) company，这样子比较稳妥。

paopaofynUID: 2124302

哈哈