Argument2(words452)
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.'
Outlines:
1、可能制定的规定与房产增长是个巧合
2、可能导致房产增长的原因是多方面的
3、B区的经验不一定适合D区
正文：
In this argument, the committee of homeowner from the Deerhaven Acres claims to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres that homeowners should set restrictions on landscaping and housepainting for raising property values in Deerhaven Acres. To support this recommendation, the committee points out that average property values in nearby Brookville community tripled through a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting seven years ago. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that because 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, the property values raise. However, it is possible that it just a coincide that setting restrictions and property values raising happens at the same time. In that case, there is no relationship between setting restrictions and property values raising. Since then the recommendation is unwarranted.
Even assuming that a set of restrictions has responsible for property values raising, the committee relies on the additional assumption that this course of action is the only fact that affects the fluctuation of property values in Brookville. However, the committee provides no evidence to support this assumption. Perhaps economy is prosperous seven years ago; it caused the increase of property values. Or perhaps the numbers of homeowners in Brookville is small and purchasers for house are many, according to the supply and demand connection in the market, the price of property values raise go without saying.
Even assuming that these restrictions are the only factors making the Brookville's raising property value, the committee fails to consider possible differences between Brookville and Deerhaven that might help to bring about a different result for Deerhaven. For instance, potential Deerhaven homebuyers may be less interested in a home's exterior appearance than Brookville's homebuyers. In that case, whether adopt a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting has little influence on the property values. Additionally, the illustration the committee cited as to the property values in Brookville happened seven years ago. The stratagem seven years ago may not suitable the situation nowadays since people's appetite, insight changes along with time flow away.
In sum, this is a weak argument. The committee relies on an example as to Brookville community to support his or her recommendation--adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting--for Deerhaven community. To strength it, the committee must provide evidence that s set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting is the only fact contribute to property value raise. Also, the committee needs to approve evidences that approaches for Brookville seven years ago are adoptable for Deerhaven in the same way.
[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-25 at 14:56 ]