Argument2第一篇望指教

machao55555555UID: 2760241

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."
WORDS: 607          TIME: 00:40:24          DATE: 2010/2/5 21:03:16
Merely, based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the committee draw the conclusion that Deerhaven Acres community should adopt their own set of restrictions in order to raise their property values. To substantiate this conclusion, the committee point out the evidence that after adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, the average property values of Brookville community tripled. At first sight, this argument appears to somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in the argument. From the logical perspective, this argument suffers from several logical flaws.
A threshold problem with this argument is the "after this, therefore, because of this" problem. Based on the fact that the property valuse in Brookville tripled after they adopted s set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, the committee infers that the restrictions should be respondible for the raise of the property values. However, the sequence of these events, in itself, does not suffice to prove that the earlier development caused the later one. It might have resulted from other events instead. It is certainly possible that the inflation caused the raise of the property values and the need for the houses could change in the last seven years. There can also be the speculation which can easily raise the property values. Without rulling out scenaries such as these, the committee cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the restrictions and the raise upon which the committee's recommendation depents.
Even assuming that it was because of the restrictions on lanscaping and housepainting that the property values raised in Brookville community, the committee relies on the claims that in the future the property values will raise as well because that the property values tripled in the past seven years. However, this assumption is unwarranted because things rarely remain the same over extended preiod of time. There are likely all kinds of difference between the past and the future. For example, people were paying attention to the colors of the exteriors of homes but they will never have interest in the colors that the houses have. Any of these scenaries, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the raise of the property values owing to the restrictions will remain in the future.
Given the tendency will remain in the future, it is necessary to  point out the last flaw involved in this argument which is a false analogy. The committee's recommendation relies on what might be a poor analogy between Brookvill community and Deerhaven Acres community. The analogy falsely deponds on the assumption that people's attention, location and structure of the houses are similar. However, it is entirely possible that people living in both community have very different ideas about the housepainting. In short, without accouting for such possible difference between Brookville community and Deerhaven Acres community, the committee cannot prove that Deerhaven Acres community will reap the similar benefits from the proposed method.
To sum up, this committee fails to substantiate his claims that Deerhaven Acres will benefit from the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the committee maintains. To make the argment more convincing, the committee would have to provide more information with regard to that the reason why the property values raised in Brookville community is the restrictions and the tendency will remain the same in the future. Additionally, he would have to demonstrate that this two community he mentions in the argument are exactly similar. Therefore if the argment had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

写的比较烂，望多多批评指教