Argument2 〈米国有米小组〉aefiter第2次作业，求拍

aefiterUID: 2134740

2 The following appeared in a letter sentby a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners inDeerhaven Acres.

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearbyBrookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yardsshould be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted.Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order toraise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set ofrestrictions on landscaping and housepainting."

1 Brookville均价上升，不是由于措施采取引起的。


2 Deerhaven Acre 与Brookville的情况不同，相同的方法不适用。


3 这种方法的副作用。



In the letter above, the homeownerssuggested that all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt the landscapingand housepainting since people living in Brookville did this and had asatisfactory result. However, no evidence shows it is the adoption oflandscaping and housepainting that leads to the increase of property value inBrookville. Moreover, we cannot assure our town will benefit in the same way asBrookville does. From all the reasoning above, we find this argument anunconvincing one.

The rising of average property values may hasno essential causal relationship with Brookville’s adoption of a set ofrestrictions on landscaping and housepainting, as is one of the core premisesof this argument. It is entirely possible that some other factors instead ofthe adoption of restrictions in Brookville lead to the rising of the localproperty values in Brookville. Maybe some policies which favor greatly people purchasingestate in Brookville are implemented recently, which attract a great deal of demandfor the houses, and thus stimulate the prices of estate. Both of the twofactors may uplift the prices of houses in Deerhaven, and it will be difficultto discriminate which one is the real reason for the rising. Without ruling outsuch reasons as is mentioned above, the causal relation is obscured.

Granted that Brookville does meet itstarget after the implementation of that restriction, the author's claim ispredicated on another assumption that various conditions, which are essentialfor us to make the analogy between our town and Brookville, are exactly thesame between the two towns. Perhaps to revamp the houses in Brookville isworthwhile because more of them are weathered through a long period; while ahigh rate of houses in Deerhaven Acres are newly built, thus need no refurbishmentat all. Because of the meager information provided in this argument, theconclusion may be erroneous.

Finally, assuming a set of restrictions onlandscaping and housepainting are applicable to Deerhaven Acre, we cannotassure these restrictions will function properly in a social environment thatmay be different from Brookville. For one thing, people living in DeerhavenAcre may resist the housepainting for the concern of the protection ofenvironment because some kinds of chemical used to renew houses contain toxinsto their living surroundings; this side effect, instead of motivating people tobuy houses, may cause purchasers' repugnance to set their house in DeerhavenAcre. In case this possibility may occur, the arguer should consider more thanjust copy the method in the nearby Brookville.

Although this argument appears compellingat the first glance, it draws the conclusion so imprudently as to neglect the similarityand difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acre. In the first place, no similaritiesbetween these two towns is provided for a much deeper evaluation as to whether DeerhavenAcre has the need to refurbish their houses and rearrange their landscape; in thesecond place, the arguer ignores possible side effects coming after the implementationof this restriction. Either problem, if occurred, will render this argument a tenuousone.