argument 2【clover】第二次小组作业 by CC

chaliaUID: 2589767

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 house painting."

七年前，附近的Brookville社区的业主实施了一系列关于该社区的庭院应如何布置以及房屋应涂何种颜色的规定。从那以后，Brookville的地产平均价格翻了三番。为使Deerhaven Acres的地产升值，我们也应该对于景观和房屋涂色实自己的规定。


This plausible argument recommends a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to increase the proper values of the houses in DA. However, after scrutinizing the evidence and the reasoning of the author, this argument is neither logical nor practical. The tripling property value of Brookville may result from other significant factors other than(rather than 哪个好点?) adopting such set of restrictions. Besides that fallacy of “after this, therefore because of this”, the author also wrongly assumes that the experience from Brookville seven years ago is sure to be suitable and accurate for DA today.

When it is true that the average property values in Brookville have tripled, the author cannot simply conclude this achievement as a result of the landscaped yards and the painted houses. It is completely possible that others factors contribute to the increase of average property values in Brookville community. For instance, the tripling of property values may resulted from its perfect facilities such as swimming pool, tennis court, children's park, and health club. It is also likely that the convenience to public transport adds to the values (这里是不是有点问题?不知道怎么表达..><) in Brookville. Without ruling out these and other alternative explanations for the increase, the author cannot reasonably infer on the basis of the set of restrictions.


Even if there is causal relationship between the set of restriction and the tripling of property values，to make the recommendation that a similar policy should be promoted in DA still cannot result from the experience from Brookville seven years ago. Considering that modern people are getting more concerned with individual identities, it is entirely possible that they prefer to houses with distinctive appearance. Therefore, they might not take it seriously to benefit the whole community at the cost of giving up their own homes’ characteristics. So the letter requires all the homeowners in DA to paint their homes in the same color, which might cause much resistance.


Even if we concede that the policy seven years ago is still useful today，the final conclusion that DA should landscape the yard and paint the exteriors wall is still questionable. DA and Brookville，although shares some common characteristics, might be totally different in other aspects. For example homeowners in Brookville community may adopt greater purchasing power and the price level there is high, while homeowners in DA are not as capable as those in Brookville to pay for the extra cost of landscaping and painting.

After analyzing the evidence as well as the reasoning, it is clear that we cannot safely reach the conclusion that DA should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. If I were the author, I will try to find other evidences to preclude those possibilities mentioned above to make a better argument. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.

taotaoleUID: 2694983

写的不错啊……

chaliaUID: 2589767

taotaole的意见让我受益匪浅吖~ 非常非常感谢!!


This plausible argument recommends a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to increase the proper values of the houses in DA. However, after scrutinizing the evidence and the reasoning of the author, this argument is neither logical nor practical. The tripling property value of Brookville may result from other significant factors rather than adopting such set of restrictions. Besides that fallacy of “after this, therefore because of this”, the author also wrongly assumes that the experience from Brookville seven years ago is sure to be suitable and accurate for DA today.

When it is true that the average property values in Brookville have tripled, the author cannot simply conclude this achievement as a result of the landscaped yards and the painted houses. It is completely possible that others factors contribute to the increase of average property values in Brookville community. For instance, the tripling of property values may resulted from its perfect facilities such as swimming pool, tennis court, children's park, and health club. It is also likely that the convenient public transportation increase the value in Brookville. Without ruling out these and other alternative explanations for the increase, the author cannot reasonably infer on the basis of the set of restrictions.


Even if there is causal relationship between the set of restriction and the tripling of property values, the recommendation that a similar policy should be promoted in DA still cannot result from the experience from Brookville seven years ago. Considering that modern people are getting more concerned with individual identities, it is entirely possible that they prefer houses with distinctive appearance. Therefore, they might not take it seriously to benefit the whole community at the cost of giving up their own homes’ characteristics. So the letter requires all the homeowners in DA to paint their homes in the same color, which might cause much resistance.


Even if we concede that the policy seven years ago is still useful today，the final conclusion that DA should landscape the yard and paint the exteriors wall is still questionable. DA and Brookville，although shares some common characteristics, might be totally different in other aspects. It is entirely possible the community scale of DA is much larger than that of Brookville. Hence the unification of outlook and the landscaping of yards in DA may require a greater amount of money. That is to say, the benefits of landscaping the yards and repainting the houses in DA may outweigh the costs.

After analyzing the evidence as well as the reasoning, it is clear that we cannot safely reach the conclusion that DA should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting.
If I were the author, I will try to find other evidences to preclude those possibilities mentioned above to make a better argument. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.

九天揽月UID: 2737667

语言得体，论证有条理，继续加油……

chaliaUID: 2589767

thanks to 九天~  没有大修改,改了几个小词..

This plausible argument recommends a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to increase the proper values of the houses in DA. However, after scrutinizing the evidence and the reasoning of the author, this argument is neither logical nor practical. The tripling property value of Brookville may result from other significant factors rather than adopting such set of restrictions. Besides that fallacy of “after this, therefore because of this”, the author also wrongly assumes that the experience from Brookville seven years ago is sure to be suitable and accurate for DA today.

When it is true that the average property values in Brookville have tripled, the author cannot simply conclude this achievement as a result of the landscaped yards and the painted houses. It is completely possible that others factors contribute to the increase of average property values in Brookville community. For instance, the tripling of property values may resulted from its perfect facilities such as swimming pool, tennis court, children's park, and health club. It is also likely that the convenient public transportation increase the value in Brookville. Without ruling out these and other alternative explanations for the increase, the author cannot reasonably infer on the basis of the set of restrictions.

Even if there is causal relationship between the set of restriction and the tripling of property values, the recommendation that a similar policy should be promoted in DA still cannot result from the experience from Brookville seven years ago. Considering that modern people are getting more concerned with individual identities, it is entirely possible that they prefer houses with distinctive appearance. Therefore, they might not take it seriously to benefit the whole community at the cost of giving up their own homes’ characteristics. So the letter requires all the homeowners in DA to paint their homes in the same color, which might cause much resistance.

Although we concede that the policy seven years ago is still useful today，the final conclusion that DA should landscape the yard and paint the exteriors wall is still questionable. DA and Brookville，although shares some common characteristics, might be totally different in other aspects. It is entirely possible the community scale of DA is much larger than that of Brookville. Hence the unification of outlook and the landscaping of yards in DA may require a greater amount of money. That is to say, the benefits of landscaping the yards and repainting the houses in DA may outweigh the costs.
After analyzing the evidence as well as the reasoning, it is clear that we cannot safely reach the conclusion that DA should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. If I were the author, I will try to find other evidences to preclude those possibilities mentioned above to make a better argument. After all, a false confidence in ineffective gear could be just as dangerous as no gear at all.