ARGUMENT2--第一篇A

tracywlzUID：2522388

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 housepainting."

In order to make the property values in Deerhaven Acres (DA) increasing, the author recommends that all homeowners adopt their set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, His reasons for taking these measures are that the nearby Brookville (B) community reinforced the restriction of landscaping and housepainting seven years ago, and because of it, the average property values in Brookville have tripled. The letter contains several facets are questionable. I will discuss each of facets in turn.

Firstly, the author irrationally assumes that the situation of property values will almost remain unchanged over the past seven years. Perhaps, seven years ago, it is the property values' realm that are solicitous of an amendment of community's yard's landscaping and home's exterior color. Nevertheless people's appetite is indispensable dramatically changed in recent years. The property values' realm may attach more importance to the environment of the committee or else, the changing of the restriction of property values may not only cannot raise DA's property values but also cripple the present development of it. Accordingly, it is highly possible the trend that the merit of DA’s property values will drastically fluctuates or even reverses in the near future.

Secondly, the author unfairly assumes the change of restriction as the only cause impacting the worth of B's property values, and he is unaware of other possible factors that may also result in the raising of property values, thus only one measure cannot be taken to the DA property values' development. For instance, in the past years, the severely accelerating number of B's denizens are a huge need of house whether the landscaping and housepainting is ameliorate; government marks out some new schools around B, therefore, people choose to live in B owe to the children convenient school life. Accordingly unless other possible reasons, such as the factors mentioned above, have been scrutinized and eliminated by the author, the causal relationship between the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting and raising of property values is completely invalid unsubstantiated.

Thirdly, the tripled properly values can not certainly be called as the best results, maybe at the same time, average property values have mushroomed, hence the author just presumes the triple is the biggest value appreciation statics and ruthless ignore other's amelioration situation. Perhaps, the DA, itself have quadruple in the past seven years, so taking the same measure as B may lead to a decrease of DAs' value. Moreover, the measure being adopted well in B can not be a compellent evidence which can give rise to the same result. Dissimilar community has entirely distinct condition, even they are neighborhood in geography, and they can not be deemed as a same one.

To reiterate, the letter is not convincing as it claims, the author would have to show the common ground between DA and B. exempli gratia, they have the same amount of residents, the same economic condition. In addition, to corroborate the conclusion, the author should buttress concrete evidence and demonstrate that the measure being taken in past seven years can also be useful to present.





2月的第一篇a,上完ｘｄｆ后直接写的。然后就没继续了。直接发上来，希望可以给些严厉批评与指导～～告诉我我哪里有问题啊，我以后准备ａ定会慢慢改的～～以后还得多麻烦666~谢谢。