argument2 背水一战小组作业

muerghqUID: 2272725

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."

outline
1 改革--价值增长，没有提供 时间推因果
2 7年前的改革经验今天是否有效，值得怀疑
3 错误类比

This argument suffers from several critical fallacies. First, the letter assumes a correlation amounts to a causal realtionship. In addition, the letter ignore that the times are different. The letter relies on a false anology.

To begin with, the letter assumes that the correlation between appliment of community similar restriction and average property values rising in Brookville means that similar restriction cause the improvement of average property values. But the letter's author fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. In addition, the author fails to consider other factors, such as other policies and global economical situation that might reap their effect. During these 7 years which is a quite long period, for instance, it is entirely possible that global economical situation has been on the rising and drive the Brookville economic.

Even if one accepts that similar restriction cause the rising of average property values 7 years ago, values of the reformation nowadays remain to questionable. Many economical situations may have changed during these 7 years and the experience may not suit to the economical situation today. Moreover, perhaps people like community similarty and similar restriction can promote economic 7 years ago. However, people with latest values might pursue a sense of individuality and appliment of similar restriction might not improve or even obstruct economic.

Finally, the letter relies on what might be a false analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres. The specific condition of the teo communities remian unknown. Perhaps Brookville is a new city with new building on similar basis, while Deerhaven Acres is an old city where the appartment buildings and houses are mixed toghther. If so, the appliment of similar restriction might be impossible and would not rise economic, and the letter's recommendation would amount to especially poor advice.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. To strenghten the letter, the letter's author would have to provide more evidences concerning the cause-and-effect relationship between similar restriction and economical improvement and whether the experience is useful today, and consider and role out other factors that might effects the economical improvement. To better evaluate the letter, one would need more information about Brookville and Deerhaven Acres.