argument2 欢迎来拍萨~~~

sunny100UID: 2138484

------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 housepainting.'


In this argument, the author cites a series of facts to demonstrate that the adoption of the restriction on landscaping and housepainting can raise the value of the housing in Deerhaven Acres. The argument, at first glance, may seem to be somewhat plausible. However, close scrutiny of the evidence the author presented above reveals that the argument is unwarranted for several critical flaws which are addressed below.

Firstly, the author bases his argument on the poor assumption that the increasing of the average property value in Brookville is resulted from the implementation of a set of restrictions on how the Brookville's community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. However, the author provides no evidence that these two things have strong cause and effect relationship. It is entirely possible that the rising of the property price in Brookville is generated by other factors, such as the prosperity of the economic throughout the whole country or the living condition developed in Brookville.

Secondly, the author ignores the potential differences between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville. The restriction may be suitable in Brookville; however, it may not has the same effect in Deerhaven Acres. The reasons are as below: (1) the residents in the two areas are different. People in Brookville may be used to all kinds of restrictions, so they can accept the restriction on landscaping and housepainting easily. Whereas the residents in Deerhaven Acres may possibly cannot conform the restriction. (2) The communities in Brookville could be more suitable for the unite style. The houses in Brookville may be designed in the same way; therefore, if they are painted in the same color, it may look very beautiful. However, the communities in Deerhaven Acres may not have this character.

Thirdly, the author fails to give any convincing evidence and statistics to persuade us that the restriction will not force people to leave the community. If the restriction is adopted, it is true that some people may accept it anyway, however, it also has the strong possibility that many people in the community may move out. The author does not mention in what proportion may the people leave their house as a result of the restriction. If too many people abandon their former house, the average property value in Deerhaven Acres could be in danger of a decrease.

In summary, the author's argument is vague and unconvincing.  To persuade us, the author has to provide more specific evidence and statistics on the cause and effect relationship between the restriction and the increasing of the average property value in Brookville. At the same time, the author has to show us that the restriction can have the same positive effect as it did in Brookville.

wildchildbjUID: 2164822

最后一段、？？？
放远一点说no sufficiency,but potential danger好一些吧

sunny100UID: 2138484

恩。有道理啊。。。。。谢谢阿~~~~