[a习作temp] argument2 高频 [复制链接]

collins_liu
UID: 190687

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 0
寄托币: 1094
注册时间: 2004-12-29
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-19 15:38:18 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

2The 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 the argument, the arguer advocates that Deerhaven Acres should adopt its own set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting. In support of the opinion, he provides the evidence that after Brookvile community adopted a set of such restrictions average property values have tripled there. Further, the arguer pointed out that in this way we can also raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. Unfortunately, the argument is problematic for the following several critical flaws.

In the first place, the arguer does not consider several other relative factors that may be more important than the restrictions in determining the rise of the property values. For instance, with the development of the city, the place becomes much nearer to the centre of city and many shopping centres and business buildings are set up around, which leads to the property value's tripling. Or perhaps the living condition in other aspects such as entertainment and shopping has been significantly improved so that much more people are likely to settle down there, which makes great contribution to the rise of the values. Without excluding these or other possibilities, the arguer cannot simply build such a causal relationship.

Another problem weakening the argument is that the arguer does not give any reasons to his claim that they are able to set up such restrictions as Brookvile. It is likely that Deerhaven Acres is unable to carry it out because many of the inhabitants may oppose to it for certain reasons. Suppose that all people agree to set up the restrictions, their ideas may be divergent in detailed specific such as the color of the painting and the layout of the landscape. If the arguer wants to reach the conclusion, he has to rule out such possibilities first.

Last but not least, the argument commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if Brookvile raise the property values through the restrictions, it does not follow that Deerhaven Acres can do it in the same way. Possibly the previous landscaping and exterior painting of homes in Brookvile are poor while in Deerhaven Acres they are already good enough. Moreover, homeowners in Brookvile can be good at designing work so the landscaping in their yard and the housepainting can be more attractive. All of these can prevent the restriction from being as effective as the arguer predicts.

To sum up, the argument fails to be well reasoned. To make it more convincing, the arguer need to provide concrete evidence that the rise of property values are caused by the restrictions. He also need more information regarding the ability of Deerhaven Acres to build such restrictions.In addition, more facts concerning the difference between Brookvile and Deerhaven Acres has to be presented.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-19 at 17:44 ]