ARGUMENT2 【CSMY作文互改小组】第四次作业

stevenhuUID: 172722

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 housepainting."

DATE:2007-01-13 WORDS 517

In the letter, the committee calls for adopting an own set of regulation on housepainting and landscaping, in order to raise the property value in Deenrhaven. To prove this suggestion, the author cites the example of homeowners nearby Brookville, and the tripled property value in the seven years there. The author's advice is inconvincible, because there are several fallacies in the reasoning process.

First of all, the author fails to persuade us the price rise of property nearby Brookville is caused by the community's action of regulating landscaping and housepainting. Indeed, a dedicated design of painting and decoration would usually make the whole community more elegant and beautiful, but it can not definitely cause a value raise. Perhaps it is because the excellent natural environment and recently developed traffic condition that really bolsters the value of those houses in the past seven years. Without enough statistics, it is also equally possible that at the same period, the average property value near Brookville has actually raised eight times, while due to the reason that community's regulation actually restricts householder's freedom of expressing their individualities, the value of these houses just raised three times. For short, lacking certain facts and statistics, the author can not directly convince us these restrictions on housepainting and landscaping can directly cause the value raise.

Secondly, even if the regulation has really caused the value raise of houses near by Brookville, the author can not help us to believe the same action can raise the value of houses in Deerhaven Acres. As mentioned above, lots of factors can influence property value, such as location, environment, traffic condition, and even education background of neighbors. In this situation, though the pattern of housepainting and landscaping would improve the scene of Deerhaven Acres, it is still possible that the property value keeps dropping due to the never stopping worse of local environment and security situations. So, lacking the information of some key elements of the house area, the author just can not ensure us the property value would certainly raise.

Finally, in this memo, the author unreasonably assumes that the value raise of houses would be beneficial to homeowners in Deerhaven Acers. It is true that in case of value raise, the homeowners who want to sell their houses would earn more money. However, to those who want to really live in this area, this is by no means good news. From economic theories and practical experience, we know that such real-estate value raise will often cause the inflation of everyday living necessities, such as water, gas and foods. If this really happens, it will raise the living expenditure to local homeowners, therefore it will decrease the happiness they can experience.

To sum up, the author's suggestion is unconvincing for it lacks the necessary information demonstrating that property raise is directly caused by taking restrictions on housepainting and landscaping, and the same thing can also happen in Deerhaven Acres. And furthermore, the author irrationally assumes that property value change will benefit these homeowners. To make the suggestion really persuading, the author should at least prove the fallacies mentioned above.


[ 本帖最后由 stevenhu 于 2007-1-14 21:45 编辑 ]