Argument2 【Persistence小组】第8次作业

小驴子UID: 2222683

2.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 author concludes that all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should use a set of restriction of landscaping and housepainting since the nearby Brookville community adopted this way and make its average property values improve a lot. Close scrutiny of these facts, however, reveals that this evidence lends credible support to the recommendation.

The threshold problem with the argument is that the author ascribes the improvement of the average property in Brookville to the appearance change of their community’s yards and house color, which is unconvincing logically. It is entirely possible that the house demand at that time increased or the supply of which decreased. After all, the price of the house has a close relationship with people’s demand. For example, maybe the traffic situation in Brookville improved a lot and made people more convenient go to work or other places, which attract more people to buy house there. Or Brookville might develop a new nature view, a business center or some factors which appealed to several people to live in.

In addition, the argument relies on what might be a false anatomy between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville. The author unfairly assumes that the conditions in those two regions are entirely the same, thus the same result will necessarily happen in Deerhaven Acres as that in Brookville. However, the situation is highly possible on the opposite side, as we suppose, rather than adjusts to the author’s underlying assumption. For one reason, the arguer ignores that restrictions Brookville community adopted is in seven years ago. It is possible this set of restrictions might be out of date in nowadays people’s view. For another reason, since two communities are located in different place, there may be lots of distinction between them. Homeowners might have their own customs and penchants respectively; we can not force them to change greatly if they would like to remain the old habits. Moreover, the restrictions which are useful in Brookville may be not suitable to homeowners in Deerhaven Acres. Therefore, we need to know whether the two regions have the same conditions to make the comparison.

Finally, the author doesn’t mention that whether the restrictions carried through in whole community. People might refuse to change their own style of house in Brookville. If so, the whole conclusion might be unfounded and the fact that the increase of average property in Brookville cannot attribute to the restrictions the author mentioned.

In sum, the letter relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the author of the letter should provide other change in Brookville during the past year, compared with the appearance change, in order to prove the latter is the only reason that causes the increase of average property of Brookville. I would also need to know whether the two communities are similar with each other in all situations. What’s more, the homeowners’ opinion on the restrictions is also important.

Andy85UID: 2250503

In this letter, the author concludes that all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should use a set of
restrictions of landscaping and housepainting since the nearby Brookville community [adopted this way adopt 是个及物动词] and [make]have made its average property values improve a lot. Close scrutiny of these facts, however, reveals that this evidence lends credible support to the recommendation.

The threshold problem with the argument is that the author ascribes the improvement of the average property value in Brookville to the [appearance change 你确信有这样的用法？] of their community’s yards and house color, which is unconvincing logically. It is entirely possible that the house demand at that time increased or the supply of which decreased. After all, the price of the house has a close relationship with people’s demand. For example, maybe the traffic situation in Brookville improved a lot and made people more convenient to go to work or other places, which attracts more people to buy house there. Or Brookville might develop a new nature view, a business center or some other factors which appealed to several people to live in.

In addition, the argument relies on what might be a false [anatomy] analogy between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville. The author unfairly assumes that the conditions in those two regions are entirely the same, thus the same result will necessarily happen in Deerhaven Acres as that in Brookville. However, the situation is highly possible on the opposite side, as we suppose, rather than [adjusts to] in favor of the author’s underlying assumption. For one reason, the arguer ignores that restrictions Brookville community adopted is in seven years ago. It is possible this set of restrictions might be out of date in [nowadays adv] people’s view. For another reason, since two communities are located in different places, there may be lots of distinctions between them. Homeowners might have their own customs and penchants respectively; we can not force them to change greatly if they would like to remain the old habits. Moreover, the restrictions which are useful in Brookville may be not suitable to homeowners in Deerhaven Acres. Therefore, we need to know whether the two regions have the same conditions to make the comparison.

Finally, the author doesn’t mention that whether the restrictions carried through in whole community. People might refuse to change their own style of house in Brookville. If so, the whole conclusion might be unfounded and the fact that the increase of average property value in Brookville cannot be attributed to the restrictions the author mentioned.

In sum, the letter relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the author of the letter should provide other changes in Brookville during the past year, compared with the appearance change, in order to prove the latter is the only reason that causes the increase of average property value of Brookville. I would also need to know whether the two communities are similar with each other in all situations. What’s more, the homeowners’ opinion on the restrictions is also important.
文章条理清楚，只是有些词语好像是作者生造出来的啊，如果实在找不到合适的词语，宁可用简单的，也不能用错的。