Argument 2: 刚写Argument, 希望大家多提建议

gre_awUID: 194715

------题目------
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 housepainting.'
------正文------
In this analysis, the arguer concludes that the homeowners in Deerhaven should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To support his argument, the fact is listed that the average property values have tripled in Brookville since these restrictions mentioned above was adopted. However, the argument suffers from several critical logical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of "Post Hoc". The author assumes that the landscaping of yards and the painting of the exteriors of homes has resulted in the tripling of the property values in Brookville. However, the reasoning is invalid and misleading because the improvement of the property values which happens later than the restrictions being put forward no way indicates the causal relationship. Many other factors may contribute to the raised property values. Do people in Brookville change a lot in their actions to the nature? Is the climate no longer what it used to be? Or is it true that more people have moved into Brookville in the last few years? If the author can not give the explanations to the possible factors, the conclusion can not be reached from his reasoning.

In addition, the author bases his argument on a false analogy. In this argument, the arguer assumes that Deerhaven Acres could necessarily raise its property values by simply copying the policy of Brookville. What he neglects is that the difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres may play a far more vital role than does what they share in evaluating the validity of the reasoning. Several counter-examples can be utilized to point out the fallacy of the reasoning. First, the farm land in Deerhaven Acres differs from that of Brookville. Land in Brookville may be more suitable for the agricultural production and the improvement of the environment plays a less role in the improvement of the average property values. Second, the types of the crops and other plants may be different in Brookville and Deerhaven Acres, so the same actions done to Deerhaven Acres may be invalid and even counter-productive. Consider the two kinds of fruits, apple and orange. In China, oranges can only be grown in Southern China and apples can only be planted in Northern China. This illustrates that different environment can be suitable only to the specific plants.

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically accepted the arguer should demonstrate the relationship between the restrictions and the average property values. Additionally, the arguer should list the evidence that the situation in Brookville and Deerhaven Acres is nearly the same.

向日葵的孩子UID: 162587

分析得比较透彻。但感觉行文用模版的痕迹比较明显。
呵呵，刚开始写都是这样！多研究研究官方范文吧，好处大大滴~~~

gre_awUID: 194715

谢谢!
难道考试时不能用模板吗? 不用模板不好写啊!

naiba369UID: 131655

呵呵，多写把