argument2 FLY AW小组第三周作业

澄～清UID: 2215483

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 yard should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of the home 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 restriction on landscaping and housepainting.”

In this letter, a committee of homeowners from Deerhaven Acres advocates certain restrictions concerning their homes' exterior appearance in order to enhance their estate values. To support this recommendation the author assert that the property values in Brookville community raise three times after the uniform landscaping and housepainting seven years ago. Careful scrutiny of the editorial reveals two obvious logical fallacies that render the recommendation untenable.

The threshold fallacy that the author commits is the confusion of temporal sequence and the cause-effect relationship. The letter alleges the reason for the increase of property value in Brookville community is the restriction on houses’ exterior appearance. However, the arguer fails to substantiate the cause-effect relationship between these two affairs. The only thing we have known is the occurrence of price-raising after the restriction of houses’ appearance and the time span is seven years. The author even do not give the evidence about the implement of this restriction, the rather that the effect of the restriction. Even assuming that the Brookville homeowners carried out these regulations, it is impossible to attribute the increase of Brookville property values to this course of action, more importantly, after a considerable period of time. The value of the real estate is the function of demand and supply. The increase of it can be ascribed to many reasons. It is entirely possible that the increase of demand, due to the influx of new residents, or the decrease of supply is responsible for the price-raising. Even the land speculators could influence the price seriously. Without ruling out these alternative possibilities, the assumption that restrictions led to the increase in Brookeville property values, which support the recommendation, is groudless.

Even if the assumption above is true, the arguer’s recommendation is still meaningless because of another logical fallacy—unreasonable analogy. The committee advocated the restriction on the unsubstantiated assumption that these two communities are sufficiently alike in ways that might be affected, and overlooked the differences between the Brookville community and Deerhaven Acres. If the economy of Deerhaven Acres remains stagnant, if the local residents leave, if the environment deteriorate, would the property values increase? Any of these factors may be a fatal barrier to committee’s plan. Lacking evidence that the course of action could be effective in Deerhaven Acres as well, the author cannot reasonably rely the results of Brookville in recommending the same results in Deerhaven Acres.

On balance, as it stands, the recommendation of committee is unreliable, to strength it the author must provide the evidence that it was the restriction that influence the house prices in Brookville, not others. Furthermore, the arguer should make the clear comparison between two communities and analyze every potential factor to demonstrate the feasibility of this plan and its result.