argument2 希望大家指教

flyappleUID: 154698

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.'


Basing on the fact that the property value have been increased after a set of restriction on the landscaping and the house painting in Brookville, the arguer concludes that the Deerhaven Acres should take the same action to enhace its property value. However, with careful analysis the argument is problematic because of several fallacies as follows.

In the first place, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the restriction on landscaping and painting and the raise of the property value in Brookville. There are many other possible alternatives to lead the increase of the property value. These alternative includes the economic condition during the seven years in the place of Brookville, the local demanding of the property, and the salary level of the local people and so on. For example, as we all know, the value is the function of the demand and the supply. Maybe during the seven years, the population has been increasing continuously due to the immigration of the people, therefore, the demand for housing has risen correspondingly. In addition, it is likely that the country is suffering a world- wide inflation, which would cause the increase of the property value as well. Unless the arguer rules out other possibility that could result in the value rising, the causal relationship between the restriction on landscaping and painting is unwarranted.

In the second place, granted the restriction is responsible for the raise of the property value, such strategy may not be effective in any place. The difference between Brookville and Deerhaven may cause the different results even if they all adopt the similar restriction. It is likely that the residents in Deerhaven may pay less attention to the appearance of the houses, therefore, the restriction on the house painting and the landscaping would make no influence on the property value in Deerhaven, although such restriction have bring about the positive effect in Brookville. Moreover, if the residents in Deerhaven prefer the diverse style of their living environment and the varied exterior appearance of the houses, such restriction might cause the dissatisfactory of the residents, and the property value in deer haven would reduce accordingly. Another case is that, the average value in Brookville is a too vague concept, may be the value of property there, even after tripled, is still lower than that of property in Deer haven. From this sense, to enhance the property value in deer haven, should be take other kind of methods.

To sum up, the conclusion of the argument is groundless due to the false analogy and the unwarranted casual relationship. To maintain the argument the arguer should rule out other possibilities than the restriction on the painting and landscaping that could result in the increase of the property value, and should also offer more specific information of the Deerhaven .

imongUID: 140258

题目在哪里呢 ^^

flyappleUID: 154698

不好意思，我加了题目重新贴了一下，谢谢指教。

wuwei2668UID: 189816

说句实在的，我觉得argument的套路性很强，我觉得大家写的都差不多，我也不知道怎么改。但你的语言还是存在一些问题的，你最好把他们贴到word上，这样你就会发现问题了。你的新issue呢，我还是给你改issue把

wuwei2668UID: 189816

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.'


Basing on the fact that the property value have been increased after a set of restriction on the landscaping and the house painting in Brookville, the arguer concludes that the Deerhaven Acres should take the same action to enhace its property value. However, with careful analysis the argument is problematic because of several fallacies as follows.

In the first place, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the restriction on landscaping and painting and the raise of the property value in Brookville. There are many other possible alternatives to lead [lead to对吗]the increase of the property value. These alternative[alternatives] includes[include] the economic condition during the seven years in the place of Brookville, the local demanding[demand] of the property, and the salary level of the local people and so on. For example, as we all know, the value is the function这是什么意思呢reaction如何 of the demand and the supply. Maybe during the seven years, the population has been increasing continuously due to the immigration of the people,[outsiders] therefore, the demand for housing has risen correspondingly. In addition, it is likely that the country is suffering a world- wide inflation, which would cause the increase of the property value as well. Unless the arguer rules out other possibility that could result in the value rising, the causal relationship between the restriction on landscaping and painting is unwarranted.

In the second place, granted the restriction is responsible for the raise of the property value, such strategy may not be effective in any place. The difference between Brookville and Deerhaven may cause the different results even if they all adopt the similar restriction. It is likely that the residents in Deerhaven may pay less attention to the appearance of the houses, therefore, the restriction on the house painting and the landscaping would make no influence on the property value in Deerhaven, although such restriction have bring about the positive effect in Brookville上面这句话我觉得不太好，deerhaven的住户并不决定房价吧，我觉得应该用比如现在的顾客已经不喜欢那种整齐划一的布局方式了，喜欢个性化的外观. Moreover, if the residents in Deerhaven 改成[the customers, because the key is not the resident but the potential customers]prefer the diverse style of their living environment and the varied exterior appearance of the houses, such restriction might cause the dissatisfactory of the residents, and the property value in deer haven would reduce accordingly. Another case is that, the average value in Brookville is a too vague concept, may be the value of property there, even after tripled, is still lower than that of property in Deer haven. From this sense, to enhance the property value in deer haven, should be take other kind of methods.

To sum up, the conclusion of the argument is groundless due to the false analogy and the unwarranted casual relationship. To maintain the argument the arguer should rule out other possibilities than the restriction on the painting and landscaping that could result in the increase of the property value, and should also offer more specific information of the Deerhaven .
你快点把issue 发上来啊，你工作很忙吧 ，很少见你上来