Argument2[Perseverance小组]第三次作业 by 执着

wchao69UID: 2209794

In this letter, the committee reaches a conclusion that people in Deerhaven Acres (DA) should adopt a series of restrictions on landscaping and house painting just as the Brookville (B) community did seven years ago, in order to improve their property values. To support his/her claim, the arguer notes that the average property values have tripled in B during the past seven years. In addition, the author also cites evidence that community in Brookville adopted a set of restrictions. On first glance, the recommendation seems to be somewhat appealing, but a close scrutiny reveals that the author fails to take into account some significant concerns that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.


First and foremost, the arguer commits a fallacy of "causal oversimplification" in assuming that the development of average property values is attributable to adopting the restrictions seven years ago. Although it is possible that the same colors and landscaped yards looks beautiful, neat and appealing in some way, they also lead to some trouble, such as people from outside would feel difficult to find a place in this community. While the restrictions policy might be an important contributing factor to the phenomena, it is hardly the only one. To establish a causal relationship between the increase of average property with the restrictions, other factors that could result in the increase should be considered and eliminated. In fact, many other factors may contribute to the results. There is a good chance that the average property values increase just because the environment is quiet and comfortable and people like the environment more than the simplex and settled style and color.

On the other hands, the restrictions were adopted seven years ago. A policy that was actualized seven years lends no strong support to the conclusion that the increase of property values is attributable to the change. Many things could happen during seven years. For one thing, it is highly possible that the population skyrockets during the past seven years because a new enterprise was built and lots of immigration comes from other places. Or perhaps an advanced high school was built in Brookville, and lots of parents bought or rented houses here to offer their children a good education environment. Consequently, any of the above scenarios, if true, would undermine the conclusion that the author has drawn. If the author can not consider or eliminate these or other possible reasons why the house price has been tripled, the conclusion of this argument would be unconvincing.

Thirdly, even if I concede the increase of average property values results from the restriction policy, the argument still commits a fallacy of "false analog". The arguer takes it for granted that the situation can also be adoptable for the people in DA. Actually the reasoning is questionable because similarities between the two places and the environment may be quite different to warrant this claim. For example, habitants in DA are mostly like to be distinctive, and they don't want any restriction. Or perhaps, the terrain and the environment in DA are not suitable to build the same houses and yards. The author's failure to prove or even consider the comparability between Brookville and DA renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

To conclude, from what we have discussed above, we can safely draw an conclusion that this argument is lacking of evidences and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the recommendation, the arguer should provide more substantial evidences that the increase of average property values in Brookville is directly attributable to the restriction policy rendered seven years ago and the situation can be used in DA.