argument2 [OB小组]_第4次作业

xiao8686UID: 2266881

TOPIC: ARGUMENT2 - The following appearedin a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deer haven Acres to allhomeowners in Deer haven Acres.

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearbyBrookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yardsshould be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted.Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order toraise property values in Deer haven Acres, we should adopt our own set ofrestrictions on landscaping and house painting."
WORDS: 496          TIME: 00:30:00+10:00          DATE: 2007-7-16 22:29:56

In this letter, the arguer recommend toadopt restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise property valuesin Deer haven Acres(DA) just as what the Brookville(BV) community did sevenyears ago considering the effective raise of property values they receivedthen. However, such suggestion and the argument suffers from severe flaws thuscan hardly stand.

Firstly, the arguer lend little support tosustain his presumption that it was the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting that took effects and tripled the property values in BV. It is highlypossible that what really contributed the raise are some other policies thecommunity adopted or other reasons which had nothing to do with any man-madedecisions. For example, it maybe some
favorable measures such as offeringone-year long membership of a local mall, gym, and etc for free that raise theaverage property values. Or it is quite possible as well such raise is due tothe real-state market fluctuation. In sum, the arguer needs to provide moreinformation to testify the actual effects of restrictions on landscaping andhouse painting in raising property values.

Secondly, even it was indeed thoserestrictions that were attributed to the raise, the arguer failed to make anyvalid and adequate analogies between DA and BV at all.  There is a huge chance that landscaping andhouse painting are utterly unsuitable for DA given the possible geological andcultural differences between the two area. For instance, people in DA are moreprone to decorate the exteriors of the houses by themselves, therefore, theunification of the colors for house painting will low the property values onthe contrary. Or the community's yards in DA can hardly be landscaped for therocks in the area are difficult to break down, which hinder the landscaping.Therefore, the arguer can not convince me the property values can ascend aswell after adopting the restrictions on landscaping and house painting withoutoffering enough evidence to support his points.

Thirdly, the arguer suffered the fallacy of"what happened years ago can happen now". The successful case to liftproperty value by house painting and landscaping was seven years ago. Thetemporal differences can be extraordinary which leads the same restrictions tofail seven years after. It was possibly the fashion of purchasing thelandscaped and painted houses that tripled the property values in BV back then.Nevertheless, such trend does not exist any more and people may tend to haveother fads about the types of houses or be quite cautious and taking all sortsof accounts while buying houses. Consequently, the restrictions may beunpopular or be a negligible factor today.

In conclusion, the argument is notpersuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer ought tocollect more data and evidence to verify that seven years ago the landscapingand house painting was the major cause the property values increased in BV andsuch restriction still works for DA at present.