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.'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
提纲：
1.在采取限制和地价上涨没有因果关心
2.错误类比
In this argument, the arguer suggested to adopt the set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in order to raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres just as had been adopted in nearly Brookville community seven years ago. But the argument suffers from several fallacies.
To begin with, there is no causal relationship between adopting a set of restriction on united decorating and the increase of the average property values. There are many factors that might influent the property values such as the development of economy, the increasing demands for the house of the whole society and service of the Brookville community, the pleasant environment of the Brookville, etc. Perhaps it is the pleasant enviroment of the Brookville community that attract the homeowners . Furthermore, the economy of the whole society can also significantly influence the average property of the values. The author makes the hasty generalization that the triple of the average property is the result of adopting the restrictions and ignores other factors which might the real causes for the raise of the property values.
Morever, the argument is based on a false analogy and fails to take into account the difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres. Though this may be true in some cases that the adopting of restrictions contributed to the increase of the average property seven year ago, it is questionable to conclude that the restriction are still suitable today since there may be a rapid change in people's taste and so forth. It's possible that seven years ago, people paid much attention to the neatness and consolidation of the houses, but today the homeowners would prefer the house located in a nice nighbourhood and so forth. Even if that the experience of restriction is still useful today, but the homeowners of the two communities may be different in their vocations, ages, status in the society, etc. Perhaps, elderly person living mostly in Brookville prefer quietness and easiness, while young people living mostly in Deerhaven Acres prefered just the oppostie. Consequently, the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting would result in the dissatisfaction of the homeowners and result in the decrease of property values on the contrary,
To sum up, the argument lends no strong support to whether the Deerhaven Acres should adopt the restriction on landscaping and housepainting. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more evidence concerning that the experience of the Brookville seven years ago is still feasible today though the whole society is pursuing the individuality. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information regarding the homeowners of the Deerhaven Acres are jolly about the restriction.