argument2 【加州阳光】第一次作业，敬请拍砖

riverwUID: 2199459

1. 错误假设：Brookville价值上升是因为采取了restriction
2. 错误类比：Brookville的策略同样适用于Deerhaven

In this letter the committee recommends that in order to raise the property values in Deerhaven Acres the house owners should set a series of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To support the recommendation, the committee points out that in the seven years since Brookville adopted similar restrictions the average property values there have tripled. This argument suffers from several critical flaws.

Firstly, the committee unfairly assumes that the adoption of restrictions was responsible for the increase of property values in Brookville. Though the increment happened after the restriction policy, no direct evidence illustrates that the restrictions leaded to the increasing of the property values. It is highly possible that one or more other factors were instead responsible for the increment, especially since a considerable period of time has passed since Brookville adopted its restrictions. Perhaps the demand for houses increased in that area or available house resources on local estate market decreased considerably. Or, that area might have been developped as a new resort. These factors could provide alternative explanation for the increase of property values.

Secondly, even assuming that the property values' increasing in Brookville is attributable to the restrictions, the committee fails to consider the possible differences between the two areas that might cause different results to Deerhaven. Perhaps the buildings in Brookville are mainly modern constructions and the restricted landing and painting style made them more attractive to the potential house-buyers and indirectly increased the property values, while in Deerhaven, the buildings are mainly old even historic constructions, a community restriction policy might do nothing to but damage the values of the buildings. Moreover, there might exist cultural discrepancies between the two communities. House-buyers in Deerhaven might be less interested in houses' exterior appearances than Brookville home owners. In this case, a consistent house style would lose attraction to Deerhaven house-buyers and the restrictions concerning the landscaping and housepainting might acturally decrease the property values. Without accounting for all these and other possible dissimilarities, the committee can not assume that what resulted in property values’ raising in Brookville would bring about the same result to Deerhaven.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To make it more persuasive the committee should provide clear evidence that the restrictions were the only reason of property values' increasing in Brookville. The committee must also explain the two communities have no different factors that might cause different results to the property values.