Argument2 【CSMY作文互改小组】第三组第四次作业

leonardowangUID: 2285975

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.

"
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。在Brookville中，property value的增加只不过是在采取了统一化措施之后，并不一定有因果关系
2。false analogy（七年前的情况与现在不同了；不同的社区也有不同的实际特点）
3。即是采用统一化的措施能提高PV，但是可能副作用更大，而且可能可以采取别的方法更有效。


In this argument, the author makes an analogy of Brookville community and Deerhaven Acres. Since the evidence cited that the increase of property values in Brookville is because of landscaping and housepainting, in order to raise the property values in Deerhaven, the author recommends taking the same measures as well. However, this recommendation suffers several logical fallacies after a close examination.

First, the evidence the author provided of Brookville is unconvincing as it stands. The evidence just shows the time sequence that several changes occurred in Brookville. From the evidence, it is only sufficient to concludes that the property values of Brookville raises after have their community landscaped and housepainted, rather than that the reason of increase is exactly because of having taken those measures. After all, in this argument, the author provides no other relationship between the two matters. It is entirely possible that this increase of property values is just due to the inflation of national economy which happened after Brookville took measures coincidentally.

Secondly, the author makes an obviously false analogy of Brookville and Deerhaven. Even if we concede that those measures taken in Brookville did help to raise their property values, it is not necessary the case in Deerhaven. At the very beginning of this argument, we notice that the evidence occurred seven years ago. The same measures, which might be helpful before, can have totally opposite impact currently. Besides the factor of changes of time, both of the communities have their own features due to their residents. This is especially true when people near Brookville prefer the tidiness of same style, while people in Deerhaven incline to be diverse. Without more specific investigation of the features and preferences of local people, this analogy remains groundless.

Thirdly, though we take it for grant that taking the same measures in Brookville will help to increase the average property values in Deerhaven, it is still hasty to carry out before a more through consideration of overall interests of residents in Deerhaven. Clearly taking those measures has its disadvantages, such as restriction on diversities, increase of cost as well as destruction of origin view. Without judging cost of taking those unified measures, the community is unwise to continue. This is especially true when Deerhaven has a long history and remains precious old fashion of buildings. Thus those measures would be an irreversible disaster to this historical community and its average property values would decrease dramatically.

In conclusion, the author's recommendation bases on an obvious false analogy and oversimplified evidence. To justify his recommendation, the author should prove that those measures are typical suitable to the specific features of Deerhaven.