Argument2 【CSMY作文互改小组】第四次作业lonix

lonixUID: 2202232

Argument2
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."
七年前，附近的Brookville社区的业主实施了一系列关于该社区的庭院应如何布置以及房屋应涂何种颜色的规定。从那以后，Brookville的地产平均价格翻了三番。为使Deerhaven Acres的地产升值，我们也应该对于景观和房屋涂色实施自己的规定。
提纲：
(1). 没有信息和证据显示Brookville对这一措施的实施情况。
(2). 是Brookville地区庭院布置和房屋涂何种颜色是其地产平均价格上升？还是具有她因。
(3). 即使是，但这一策略不一定能在Deerhaven地区生效.

Words: 417         Time: 00:52:00          Date:2007-1-12
Through simple analogy, the arguer recommends that in order to enhance the average property value Deerhaven homeowners should follow certain restrictions as Brookville homeowners did in the past seven years. Close scrutiny of this argument shows that the arguer must rest on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

Firstly, to make this recommendation the arguer must rely on the threshold assumption that Brookville homeowners implemented Brookville’s restriction. But the letter fails to substantiate this crucial assumption. If the restrictions were not implemented in Brookville, to think that average property value rise in Brookville is attributed to the restriction would be groundless. Accordingly, the arguer cannot draw any conclusion about the restriction which adopted in Brookville should have positive effects on Deerhaven’s property value.

Secondly, even assuming that Brookville implemented this restriction, but there is no evidence for the arguer to make us believe that it is the restriction not other factors that enhanced the property value. It is very likely that Brookville has a better investment environment and a more favorable geographical condition that results in the increasing uplift of the average property value. Without ruling out such possibility, the arguer would hardly to convince us that applying such restriction would take the same effects in Deerhaven area.

Thirdly, even assuming that the rise of average property value are actually due to the their efforts on their houses’ appearance, the arguer still cannot lead us to believe that the same restriction succeeded in Brookville area would be applicable in Deerhaven area. Although the two areas are rather near, the arguer refers little information concerning the difference of them. It is entirely possible that Brookville is becoming commercial center and tourist place that decorating the exteriors of houses would be not only necessary but also helpful for them to attract more business opportunities and more tourist while Deerhaven, due to its’ special geographical condition, would not change much. Without considering such possibility and eradicating these factors, the arguer cannot assume that what resulted in rising property value in Brookville would bring about same results in Deerhaven.

In conclusion, to persuade me to believe that Deerhaven should adopt the proposed restriction, the arguer must supply more evidence that it is the implementation of Brookville’s restriction not other factors that attribute to the rise of average property value in Brookville. In order to ensure this restriction is also applicable in Deerhaven, the arguer must find more common places about the two.