argument2【自由女神小组第十 五次作业】
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the Deerhaven Acres(DA) should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepaiting to raise property values of DA. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the evidence that in the seven years since Brookville(BV) adopt the restrict on landscaping and housepaiting to raise property values. This argument is problematic for several reasons.
Firstly, a threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that BV homeowners implemented BV’s restrictions. The arguer fails to substantiate this crucial assumption. If these restrictions were not implemented, then the change in BV’s can not attribute to them. Accordingly, the arguer cannot draw the firm conclusion that the property values will be raised.
Secondly, the arguer assumes that the restrictions of their own on the community’s yards in BV as the DA’s has done will raise the property values are unwarranted. The arguer fails to provide enough evidence about the DA’s condition. It is likely that the other factors lead the property values raised such as the inflation and devaluation. Yet the arguer provides no evidence that this is in the case.
Thirdly, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy. The arguer assumes the BV’s rising property values are attributable to the adoption of the restriction. The arguer fails to consider possible differences between BV and DA. Different conditions lead to different sequences, for example, the consistent exterior appearance tend to decrease DV property values. Without account for these and other possible dissimilarities, the arguer can not assume that what resulted in rising property values in BV would bring about the same result in DH.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility which can not convince us. To strength is, the arguer should provide more information on the restriction causes the property values raise. To better evaluate it, the arguer must also provides evidence that other factors affecting prices in the two areas.