Argument2

wilber5945UID: 2709861

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."


正文：

The author of this argument suggests that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should take their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting to raise property values. To support this suggestion the author cites a example that the average property values of Brookville have tripled since the homeowners there adopted a serial of restrictions on their houses and yards. However, this argument contains several logical flaws, which render it unpersuadable.


To begin with, the author unjustly to establish a causal relationship between the increase of property values in Brookville and the restrictions on houses and yards there. Yet, although the restrictions be adopted by homeowners is happened before the property values increase, the author gives no evidence to support that  the increase of property values is the result of these restrictions. Perhaps the overall economy in Brookville has become better since seven years ago, or the government of Brookville develop a commercial centre in Brookville which apparently would enhance the value of property there. Without ruling out all these possible reasons, the author's conclusion which is based on these causal relationship is unreliable.

Moreover, even if the causal relationship is dependable, the author also unfairly assume that the trend of increment of property values will continues in the future. Nevertheless, without giving reasonable evidence, the author cannot neglect other possibilities. It is entirely possible that people nowadays dislike the same shape yards as seven years ago and prefer to paint their houses by themselves.

Even assuming that the author's assumptions above are reasonable, it is hardly to infer that homeowners in Deerhaven would benefit from the restrictions as same as Brookville. Since Deerhaven would possible have different culture from Brookville, the potential purchasers in Deerhaven maybe have different standards of houses from each other. If in this case, the restriction would probably decrease the values of property in Deerhaven which totally against the author's intention.

In sum, to convince me that the restrictions on the shape of yards and colors of houses in Deerhaven would benefit the homeowners, the committee should provide more reliable evidence to substantiate the causal relationship between restrictions and property values increase and the continued increment trend of property values. To better assess this argument I need a comprehensive comparison between Deerhaven and Brookville.