[66's]同题 Argument02 de Sean

liberta.seanUID: 2700223

Purely based on groundless assumptions and questionable evidence ,the statement draws a conclusion that all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own style of limitations on landscaping and housepainting.To substantiate the conclusion ,the arguer points out evidence that homeowners in nearby Brookville community took a set of restrictions on the landscape of their yards and the color of the exteriors of their houses.Moreover ,he indicates that average property values have tripled since then .On the face of it ,the author's argument appears to be convincing to some extent . Further contemplation, however, reveals that it neglects some consequential concerns that should be addressed to corroborate the argument .In my point of view ,the argument suffers from 3 logical flaws

First of all ,higining on the fact that
property values have increased took place after the homeowners in Brookville community took a set of restrictions,the arguer extrapolates that this restrictions should be responsible for the increased values. The sequence of these events, nonetheless ,does not suffice to prove that earlier development caused the later one.It might have stemmed from some other events instead: the blooming economy and the
soaring quantity of demand , giving rise to the increase of the property values .Without ruling out scenarios such as these ,the arguer cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between them upon which arguer's recommendation depends

Secondly, even though the increase of property values is due to taking set of the restrictions, the arguer cannot assume without justification that the condition remain the same over seven years in Brookville . The assumption is gratuitous for the reason that over extended periods of time things rarely remain the same .It is entirely possible that people are regardless of the color of the exteriors of homes and are more concern with the structure of the houses and with the area of yards. Any of these scenarios ,if true ,would serve to undermine the arguer's assumption

Thirdly ,even though the set of restriction are still helpful in Brookville,the arguer cannot give a recommendation ,which relies on what might be a poor analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven.The analogy false depends on the assumption that all factors in both Brookville and Deerhaven are similar .However ,It is entirely possible that Brookville and Deerhaven have so many differences.For example ,Brookville is a large city with good economy and insufficient houses and Deerhaven is a small city with few residents and surplus houses .People in Deerhaven never care about the color of the houses.In short, without accounting for important possible differences between Brookville and Deerhaven,the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method will help Deerhaven to improve its property values.

In conclusion, this arguer fails to substantiate its claim that adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting will raise property values in Deerhaven .because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more persuasive , the arguer would have to demonstrate that taking a set of restriction does lead to the increase of property values in Brookville .Therefore,if the argument had included the given factors discussed above,it would have
been more thorough and logically acceptable.

soilinkinUID: 2163892

请不要用模板...谢谢...尊重别人的劳动成果...