[a习作temp] argument2【clover】第二次习作 by mintsh [复制链接]

mintsh
UID: 2460474

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 30
寄托币: 816
注册时间: 2008-2-18
精华: 0
帖子: 8

发表于 2010-2-3 22:58:24 |显示全部楼层

TOPIC: ARGUMENT2 - 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 the argument, the author takes the Brookville(B) for example in which the average property price swelled to triple times for the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. In order to raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres(DA), the argument proposes to imitate the measures executed by B. The deduction seems sound at the first glance while several points remain questionable.

First, the argument assumes a cause-effect relationship between regulations on house decoration and the skyrocket prices which lacks definite evidence. It is doubtful to conclude the existence of the relation only by their simultaneous occurrence. No potent evidence shows that except for the constraints on the external appearance of the houses, no other factors were possibly causes for price increase. Such factors contain the surroundings, the macroeconomic circumstances, the demand in real estate market and so forth. To clarify, imagine that at first B community was located in a suburb district which requires long time commuting to the nearest downtown. But as part of local government’s scheme to enhance transportation system, a subway was constructed to form closer connection between each district which then made houses in B more attractive to customers. The same goes for the inflation and growing population flooding into the local place. Without ruling out other possibilities, it is unfair to attribute soaring price to uniform standard on certain house planning.

Second, the analogy is effective only when the two places are almost under the same circumstances. Case analysis is crucial in that the concrete situation determines the ends. To how much on earth did the price of property in B rise? There is high chance that the property in B has been assessed wrongly at a low price and its price was gradually approaching its true value recognized by the masses while those of EA sell at a fair price according to market. Whether B has adopted the measures or not would not change the result. Furthermore, the groups of customers for whom the development is intended vary from each other. The acceptance of uniform landscape and housepainting in B might tackle with the acute criticism from inhabitants in EA. Those inhabitants might protest being deprived of the freedom to design their own houses by the constraints. Unfortunately, the argument resembles to have treated the two communities as equal.

Third, real estate market could have gone through large changes and thus what proved to function well in attracting customers might now be totally obsolete. Even though the measures are testified to be telling in the past, they cannot promise another success in raising prices in the future. Several years ago, the united style for landscaping of houses enticed people by creating an atmosphere in which people felt involved in the community and the special culture rooting in community. Nevertheless, rather than the superficial actions to claim one’s belonging to certain community people choose to launch organizations oriented at the community interests and keep tailor-made home as private space to rest in. To strengthen this statement, a comparison between current situation and that a few years ago will help to predict the effectiveness of departed measures.
Finally, the destination to reach higher property prices could be realized by many a means. Though the imitation after B would probably lead to increasing prices, the argument overlooks other latent solutions. A successful advertising campaign aimed at certain groups or better infrastructure may be more rational options for EA. To judge the reliability of this proposal, we need detail reports of all the available suggestions.
The argument seeks for methods to boost the property price and refers to the example of B to substantiate its stance on simulating. Before agreeing with the plausible conclusion, a casual relation between restrictions and property prices needs deep review towards that period to bolster. Case analyst and contrast between previous and current situations is needed to examine the creditability of adopting similar measures. Besides, after all EG are able to select a best arrangement to elevate values instead of confining to the above one.