argument2 G-89-互助社-8。28日同主题写作

fairy115UID: 200324

共用时间：30分3秒     419 words
从2005年7月28日8时31分到2005年7月28日9时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
Based on the seemingly successful experience of neighboring community seven years ago, the arguer draws a conclusion that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. However, a careful examination of this argument will reveal how groundless the conclusion is. In my point of view, the argument suffers from three flaws: non causal relationship, false analogy on time and places.

In the first place, the arguer falsely depends on the causal relationship between the restrictions in Brookville community and the tripled average property values. No evidence shows that the increased property values is the result of the restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. It is very likely that these two events only happened at the same time by coincidence, the causal relationship between them needs further information, for example, a survey conducted in the procedure of sampling on people's view about the restriction and how long the increase tendency lasts. In addition, the author fails to consider other factors that can raise property values, say, more reasonable home structures and booming economy.


Even the restriction in the Brookville community is the reason for the triple average property values, the applying similar restriction in Deerhaven Acres needs further consideration. First, the reasoning rests on the assumption that the situation nowadays is the same with what is seven years ago, which is unwarranted. It is more likely that people today pursue unique, so most of them want their home to be different from others. As a result, the restriction to acquire everyone to have same color painted and similar yards landscaped may not be successful. On the other hand, the author applies the experience of Brookville blindly to Deerhaven Acres, and fails to take the difference between them into account. People in different communities may have different preference about their living environment, for example, people in Deerhaven Acres may dislike to be forced to make their community looks the same, so the set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting will not be popular.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains and the logic in the letter is not very reasonable. If the argument includes further information helps to proof the causal relationship between restrictions and increased prices and takes the difference between time and places into account, it will be more thorough and adequate.