arguement2 第一篇argue练习……

carine8cnUID: 2167574

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."


In this letter, the committee recommends that in order to raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres(DA), they should adopt their own standard on landscaping and housepainting. To justify the claim, the committee provides the evidence that after adopting a set of restriction on these respects, the property value has been tripled in Brookville(B). The analysis suffers from critical fallacies.

To begin with, the committee fails to show us any substantial evidence that the rising of property value in B is due to the restrictions. There are many other reasons which may lead to this consequence. For example, maybe the traffic situation in B is greatly improved than before, and therefore more and more people hold the opinion that B is proper for people to live in; or  it is the perfect service and facilities that attract a large number of people to have an eye on B and thus result in the rising of the values in B; and we may even assume that the restriction in B is not well executed at all, in which condition the frustration of the property value has nothing to do with the color of housepaiting and landscaping. In a word, the committee can not persuade us firstly because we can not find a direct casual relationship between the restriction and the rising of values.

Secondly, even assuming that B's rising property is due to these restrictions, the committee unfairly holds the opinion that these restrictions will produce the same consequence at AD, wholly neglecting the differences between AD and B. Perhaps most homebuyers in AD are persons who pursue characteristic, and they don't want to be the same with others. In that condition, if the restrictions are adopted and carried out in AD, it maybe eliminates the property values in AD rather than rising. In short, lacking evidence that the situations in the two districts are relatively similar, it is impossible to draw any conclusion just on the basis of the condition in B.

To sum up, in order to enhance the committee's advice on adopting restrictions on landscaping and the color of housepainting, he must show us more evidence. For example, if the restriction in B is strictly observed and if there are any more direct causes which may bring about the rising. Besides, more information about the similarity of AD and B is also needed to illustrate the restriction will play the same role in AD.


请大家使劲拍吧，第一篇，写的时候有点不顺手……自己看了一遍不知道如何改进，好迷惑……而且一直觉得自己的逻辑思维不够缜密，且字数实在可怜，刚过400，汗。决定接受各式各样的打击，督促自己奋起……

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-6-21 20:00 编辑 ]

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

欢迎来到GRE作文版
您的发帖格式不对，请认真修改
参看这里
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-686856-1-1.html
修改完了回短消息并且附上要打开帖子的链接
我再打开主题~~谢谢:loveliness: :)

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

In this letter, the committee recommends that in order to raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres(DA), they should adopt their own standard on landscaping and housepainting. To justify the claim, the committee provides the evidence that after adopting a set of restriction on these respects, the property value has been tripled in Brookville(B)(动分词修饰结构要求动词分词的主语与主句主语一致, 这里有问题). The analysis suffers from critical fallacies.

To begin with, the committee fails to show us any substantial evidence that the rising of property value in B(正式写作不要用单个首字母简写) is due to the restrictions. There are many other reasons which may lead to this consequence. For example, maybe the traffic situation in B is greatly improved than before, and therefore more and more people hold the opinion that B is proper for people to live in; or  it is the perfect service and facilities that attract a large number of people to have an eye on B and thus result in the rising of the values in B; and we may even assume that the restriction in B is not well executed at all, in which condition the frustration of the property value has nothing to do with the color of housepaiting and landscaping(这段跟前面不是同一个逻辑层次的, 你前面在举其它可能的原因使地价上涨而这里是说规定本身没被执行, 不是并列选择关系, 而是同时发生的不同方面的问题, 因此这个放到前面说: 我们不知道条例有没有好好执行, 就算执行了也什么用也不知道, 很可能是其它原因而不是条理使地价上涨) . In a word, the committee can not persuade us firstly because we can not find a direct casual relationship between the restriction and the rising of values.

Secondly, even assuming that B's rising property is due to these restrictions, the committee unfairly holds the opinion that these restrictions will produce the same consequence at AD, wholly neglecting the differences between AD and B. Perhaps most homebuyers in AD are persons who pursue characteristic, and they don't want to be the same with others. In that condition, if the restrictions are adopted and carried out in AD, it maybe eliminates the property values in AD rather than rising.(why? 执行限制->限制自由->破坏购买着积极性->地价下跌. 注意逻辑表达的完整性) In short, lacking evidence that the situations in the two districts are relatively similar, it is impossible to draw any conclusion just on the basis of the condition in B.

To sum up, in order to enhance the committee's advice on adopting restrictions on landscaping and the color of housepainting, he must show us more evidence. For example, if the restriction in B is strictly observed and if there are any more direct causes which may bring about the rising. Besides, more information about the similarity of AD and B is also needed to illustrate the restriction will play the same role in AD.

总评: 文章内容太短了, 感觉还没怎么说理就没了, 第一个错误的它因还算充分, 第二个可以指出的可能性非常多, 建议看下官方那篇高速公路的范文, 建议多练练提纲写作, 锻炼自己寻找错误的能力, 象第二点的时间问题, 地理条件差异, 房屋现状等等都有的可说.