[a习作temp] argument2 [sjtu八勇士小组]第十七次作业 [复制链接]

frankxuanhui
UID??2305990

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 279
注册时间: 2007-2-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-18 15:04:18 |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."
提纲：1.房产升值未必由于该政策导致
2.Brookville与DA错误类比
3.七年前的情况现在可能发生了改变

In this argument,the arguer recommends that certain restrictions on landscaping and housepainting should be adopted so as to increase property values in Deerhaven Acres.The arguer’s line of reasoning is that property values in Brookville have tripled after they adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting seven years ago.While the author’s argument has some merits,it suffers from several critical problems.

To begin with,the arguer commits a fallacy of “Post hoc,ergo propter hoc” in assuming that these restrictions are the cause of increase of property values.The only evidence offered to support the assumption is that the former preceded the latter.However,a mere chronological relationship is only one of the indicators of a causal relationship.To establish a general causal relationship between them,other possible factors that could result in increase of property values should be considered and eliminated.For example,it is entirely possible that residents’ income have risen dramatically during these years so that people’s needs for good house increase.This can be a reason to explain the increase of property value.It is also possible that Brookville set out a lot of policies which attracted people in other region to live or invest in Brookville.This can also lead to increase of property values.The author’s failure to take other possible explanation for increase of property values into consideration renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

Additionally,even granted that increase of property values in Brookville really results from those restrictions,the argument is still based on false analogy.The author assumes that those restrictions will also be effective to Deerhaven Acres in assuming that these two regions have similarities.However,perhaps their difference far outweigh their similarities.It is possible that residents in Deerhaven Acres advocate freedom so that they might not agree to conform to the restrictions.It is equally possible that property values in Deerhaven Acres are low because the designs,structures and quality of their houses are poor.So that restrictions merely on landscaping and housepainting might not have any effect on property values.Last but not least,the policy was set out by Brookville seven years ago.Commonsense tells us that great changes might have occurred during these years.People’s attitudes,living habits,interests nowadays do not necessarily remain the same as those seven years ago.Unless the author is able to prove or consider the comparability between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres as well as the difference between nowadays and seven years ago,his recommendation might amount to poor advice.

To sum up,this argument is unacceptable.To strengthen the argument,the arguer should provide more evidence to prove the cause-and-effect relationship between restrictions on landscaping and housepainting and increase of property values in Brookville.To better support his recommendation,the author should also make deeper analysis of the difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres.(442 words)

[ 本帖最后由 frankxuanhui 于 2007-8-18 15:05 编辑 ]