Argument2 076G myth 小组第一次作业--Hermes

qhx17UID: 142079

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."
WORDS: 461         TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2006-10-17

The committee of homeowners in Deerhaven Acres asserts that all homeoweners should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting for the increase of property values in Deerhaven Acres. To support this conclusion the committee points out that Brookville community succeed in tripling the property values since they adopted a set of restriction on the yards and exteriors. This argument suffers from a series of poor assumptions, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the committee fails to establish a causal relationship between a set of restrictions on the appearances of the Broolville community and the average property values tripled. Although a high correlation between the former and the latter is strong evidence of a causal relationship, in itself it is insufficient. The committee must also consider all other possible factors leading to triple the average property values, such as the declination of the house number, the increase of average income, and so forth. Lacking evidence that only restrictions of the community's appearance cause the tripled average property values, the committee cannot justifiably draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Even assuming that Brookville community's increasing average property values are the result of the restrictions, the committee provides no evidence that the restrictions adopted in Brookville seven years ago is effective to today's Deerhaven. Seven years is a long time, everything might have changed, such as people's preference, community's economy, policy, and trends, and so forth. Perhaps, average property values in general today have been higher than seven years ago, triple is amount to nothing. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the committee's recommendation.

In addition, the committee cannot reasonably conclude that this causal relationship sufficiently supports recommendation. The mere fact that average property values have tripled in Brookville is scant evidence that Deerhaven Acres homeoweners would achieve the goal by following Brookville's restrictions. Because the two communities might be possibly different, for example, homeowners in Deerhaven might prefer to characteristic house and they might not change the yards nor the exteriors of houses, while Brookvilles not. It is entirely possible that the restrictions like Brookville might bring about the decline of property of values in Deerhaven. Or perhaps property values in Deerhaven might be very high and steady, it is impossible to rise. Lacking evidence that Deerhaven's condition is similar to Brookville's, the committee cannot simple concede that the property of values in Deerhaven enhance as well.

In sum, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To strengthen it the committee must assure me that restrictions on landscaping and housepainting is not only benefit for raising property values, but also suitable for today's condition in general. The committee must also provide sufficient evidence that it is feasible and profitable for Deerhaven adopting restrictions.