argument2. Restrictions on landscaping and housepainting
Analysis:
Unproved fallacy: that average property values have tripled in B community is because of adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. Ignore other possible reasons.
Analogy fallacy: does not take into account the possible differences between B community and DA.
Assertive fallacy: this strategy is a necessary method to raise the property value in DA.
Words: 383
In this letter, the arguer recommends that the adopting a set of own restriction on landscaping and house painting will raise the property values in Deerhaven Acreas (DA). After all, there is a successful precedent in nearby Brookville community (BC). However, a close scrutiny reveals that this suggestion is a hasty conclusion.
Turing first to the antecedent mentioned in the letter, the auger attributes the tripled property values in BC too arbitrarily to the restriction on landscaping and housepainting rather than some other possible factors. Perhaps the increase of property values simply reflected the increasing trends of the land price in BC, or potential demands due to a newly developed public service system such as transportation, education and public facilities in BC. In such situations, the average property values would increase. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer can not convince me that the landscaping and housepainting was responsible for the increase.
Even if the restriction on landscaping and housepainting is a contribution to the increase of property values in BC, the committee’s argument relies on an unproved assumption that the DA will benefit from the restriction of landscaping and housepainting similarly. However, the situation of the DA could be completely different with that in BC. The natural environment is possibly not good enough, the land rice may be very low, and the transportation system is probably very poor, etc. These possible differences will make it highly possible that the DA can not obtain a good property value even they adopt the similar strategy.
Furthermore, the arguer fails to demonstrate that this strategy is a necessary means to promote the increase of the property values in DA, even if this strategy will work. For example, the development of the transportation system, the improvement of the environment, the construction of the public facilities, the building of schools and hospitals will definitely work and probably more effectively than adopting a set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting.
In sum, the arguer’s argument is weak as it stands. In order to strength it, the arguer needs provide detailed information showing that DA is similar to BC in the situation that benefited from adopting restriction on landscaping and housepainting, and deliberate and complete analysis of the feasibility of this strategy as well as comparing to alternative methods.作者: hongjuer 时间: 2007-4-18 16:22:28
up. Welcome your comments. :handshake
And please leave your hyperlink, I will go to review it.
Thanks for your comments very much.
I know that I probablly have some problems with my writing, that is the reason why I wish to get good ideas from here.
But, anything can be lost except for the confidence, isn't it? ;)