7.24 首试 Argument2，求指点！

ellenoooo.yUID: 2861795

2. 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 house painting."

字数：550
首次尝试，求指点。

In this letter, the committee recommends that Deerhaven Acres should adopt the same policy as Brookville did 7 years ago to raise property values. To support this, the author cites the example of Brookville community, showing that after restricting yard landscape and outside paintings of homes, the community witnessed tripled property values in the coming years. It is somewhat reasonable at first glance, yet close scrutiny reveals several logic flaws which make this argument unpersuasive.

First of all, the author automatically assumes that the adoption of restrictions leads to the tripled average property values. The major flaw here is that the author might have been confused with cause and effect. Was the adoption of restrictions a cause of increased property values, or were these two events both effects of the regional economic booming? The local government may have strong incentives to adopt restrictions on landscapes and paintings if investors require them to do that. But it is ridiculous to say that it is due to such restrictions rather than investment that raise this area's property values. Another author may equally well cite restrictions in car parking and draw the same conclusion, yet one might be cautious in believing this statement.

Secondly, even if we take the authors threshold assumption that the set of restrictions do help raise property values, the author still fails to convince me that such success in Brookville can be replicated equally in Deerhaven Acres. As is common sense, each region is different and should be treated differently. Perhaps investors in Deerhaven Acres prefer creative exterior paintings and diversified landscapes. If so, restrictions may do no good or even harm to property values in this district. Or perhaps, the landscapes and outside paintings are already highly-identical in Deerhaven Acres; further restrictions may do less to improve property values than wasting municipal resources. Without proving that all other conditions in these two areas have been essentially the same, the committee cannot convince me that Deerhaven should adopt restrictions, even of their own style.

Thirdly, even I concede to believe that the policy worked and two places can be treated exactly the same, the committee overlooks the long term economic cycle, which means, a policy that boosted yesterday's economy cannot readily be fitted to today's economy as well. In the light of this, seven years may have changed a lot of things, such as people's taste, investment opportunities and the basic level of property values. Each of these may affect the influence of adopting restrictions. Failure to consider long term economic trend weakens the credibility of this argument.

Finally, the author assumes that adopting restrictions is the only helpful recommendation. Nevertheless, other policies, such as improving public transportation and building infrastructures, may also help raise property values. With limited resources, the government cannot implement all the possible policies. Overlooking these alternatives may make this recommendation not as optimal.

To sum up, the committee fails to offer sufficient evidence to substantiate the recommendation about adopting restrictions on landscapes and outside paintings. To make it persuasive, the author needs to prove that such restrictions are actually the cause of tripled property values and the two places can be viewed the same. To better analyze this problem, we would also need to know the long term economic trend and other possible solutions.

ellenoooo.yUID: 2861795

请高人指点，表示2号就考了~这是第一篇。。

ellenoooo.yUID: 2861795

有哪位高人愿意帮帮忙么，，跪求了。。

ellenoooo.yUID: 2861795

就这样沉下去了，有好心人帮忙改一下么？

悦茗UID: 2818584

1# ellenoooo.y
In this letter, the committee recommends that Deerhaven Acres should adopt the same policy as Brookville did 7 years ago to raise property values. To support this, the author cites the example of Brookville community, showing that after restricting yard landscape and outside paintings of homes, the community witnessed tripled property values in the coming years. It is somewhat reasonable at first glance, yet close scrutiny reveals several logic flaws which make this argument unpersuasive. The opening paragraph is excellent.

First of all, the author automatically assumes that the adoption of restrictions leads to the tripled average property values. The major flaw here is that the author might have been confused with cause and effect. Was the adoption of restrictions a cause of increased property values, or were these two events both effects of the regional economic booming? The local government? ( I think committee is far different from governmental institutions, and in the U.S. it would be ridiculous that government requires its citizens to paint their house with certain color. Based on my knowledge the committee is kind of like 业主委员会in China, where the leader is elected and the decisions are made by vote according to the most house owners’ agreement. And that is why the committee wrote this letter for opinions instead of just applying the policy directly. ) may have strong incentives to adopt restrictions on landscapes and paintings if investors require them to do that. But it is ridiculous to say that it is due to such restrictions rather than investment that raise this area's property values. Another author may equally well cite restrictions in car parking and draw the same conclusion, yet one might be cautious in believing this statement.

Secondly, even if we take the authors threshold assumption that the set of restrictions do help raise property values, the author still fails to convince me that such success in Brookville can be replicated equally in Deerhaven Acres. As is common sense, each region is different and should be treated differently. Perhaps investors in Deerhaven Acres prefer creative exterior paintings and diversified landscapes. If so, restrictions may do no good or even harm to property values in this district. Or perhaps, the landscapes and outside paintings are already highly-identical in Deerhaven Acres; further restrictions may do less to improve property values than wasting municipal resources. Without proving that all other conditions in these two areas have been essentially the same, the committee cannot convince me that Deerhaven should adopt restrictions, even of their own style.

Thirdly, even I concede to believe that the policy worked and two places can be treated exactly the same, the committee overlooks the long term economic cycle, which means, a policy that boosted yesterday's economy cannot readily be fitted to today's economy as well. In the light of this, seven years may have changed a lot of things, such as people's taste, investment opportunities and the basic level of property values. Each of these may affect the influence of adopting restrictions. Failure to consider long term economic trend weakens the credibility of this argument.

Finally, the author assumes that adopting restrictions is the only helpful recommendation. Nevertheless, other policies, such as improving public transportation and building infrastructures, may also help raise property values. With limited resources, the government cannot implement all the possible policies. Overlooking these alternatives may make this recommendation not as optimal.

(I think this paragraph is unnecessary, because the main task is to find out the flaws in the author’s reason. Suggestion to improve the way of the author’s reasoning is welcomed. That is how to make the argument more convincing. However, it may not be necessary to give advice about the subject (how to increase the value of property), I guess. )

To sum up, the committee fails to offer sufficient evidence to substantiate the recommendation about adopting restrictions on landscapes and outside paintings. To make it persuasive, the author needs to prove that such restrictions are actually the cause of tripled property values and the two places can be viewed the same. To better analyze this problem, we would also need to know the long term economic trend and other possible solutions.

悦茗UID: 2818584

不是高人。。。仅供参考。。

ellenoooo.yUID: 2861795

：）多谢你啊！ 6# 悦茗