本帖最后由 Bela1229 于 2010-3-29 18:26 编辑
ARUGMENT 02 未限时 字数641
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."
***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Simply based on the unfounded hypothesis, the author draws the conclusion that by the means of adopting our own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting, the property values in Deerhaven Acres would be raised. In order to substantiate this conclusion, the author indicates the evidence of the nearby Brookwille community did seven years ago. On the surface, this may seem a sound idea, but careful weighing on closer analysis, we find that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in the argument. From the logical perspective, this argument suffers from three crucial logical flows.
In the first place, just on account of the fact that property values raising occurred after the community adopting a set of restrictions on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted, the author opinionated deduces that the set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting of Brookville community should be responsible for the property values raising. Whereas, the sequence of these two events, in nature, does not suffice to prove that the earlier development, that is the set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting, caused the later one. Obviously, it might have been as a result of some other events instead: the requirements of house increasing rapidly in the seven years, the speculation in property and even the inflation – to just a few possibilities. Without getting rid of assumptions such as these, the author cannot demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship between the property values rising and sets of restrictions on landscaping and house painting upon which the author’s recommendation depends.
Moreover, the author claims that set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting can raise property values now, just in respect that it raises the property values seven years ago, from his personally perspective. Nevertheless, this assumption is unwarranted because things rarely remain the same over extend period of time, especially as long as seven years. There are likely all kinds of difference between seven years ago and now. For instance, people might pay more attention on the style of the room, the location of the house and even more the surrounding environment, however, in seven years ago, the landscaping and house painting are more eventful. Without taking into account these scenarios, the author cannot in haste point out that adopting a set of restrictions on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted can raise property values in the community.
Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out the last flaw involved in this letter that the argument depends on the hasty assumption that people in Brookwille community are similar to people in Deerhaven Acres community, and that there are no differences between the revenue and the attention to property of people in the two communities. However, it is entirely possible that people in Deerhaven Acres do not have the ability to afford the expensive house or maybe they are seldom or never care of the property. In short, without accounting for such possible differences between Deerhaven Acres community and Brookwille community, the author cannot prove that Deerhaven Acres will reap the similar benefits from the proposed method.
Judging from all evidence offered, we may safely arrive at the conclusion that sets of restrictions on landscaping and house painting can raise property values in Deerhaven Acres is not well-founded. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to more possible reason that let Brookwille’s property values rising. Additionally, he would have to demonstrate that people in Deerhaven Acres really think a lot of the landscaping and the house painting. Consequently, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more through and logically accepatable.
| 
发表于 2010-3-29 17:17:17
转发
签到领寄托币
GO
