Argument2 [0710G-summer小组]第一次作业by 冰河

冰河UID: 2302448

:loveliness: 处女作，欢迎来拍:loveliness:

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 400          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-18


TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 165          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-18

In this Argument, the arguer recommends all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres to adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To support his recommendation, the arguer cites the fact that homeowners in nearby Bookvelle community adopt a set of such restrictions and points out that because of theses restrictions, average property values have tripled there. Plausible as it seems, however, close scrutiny of this evidence and conclusion reveals that they suffer from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that the set of restrictions which were adopted by Brookvelle community were seriously implemented. Yet, no evidence substantiates the assumption. If some of the homeowners forget the restrictions or even refuse to fulfill the restriction at the beginning, then these restrictions loose their price.

In addition, even if average property values have tripled in Brookville, there is no guarantee that the raise in value is admirable. Perhaps due to inflation or the change of the relationship between provision and need, the property values raise much more in other areas. If it is the case, the experience of Brookville does not worth applying in the arguer's community.

Furthermore, the argument concludes based on a correlation between the adopted restrictions and rise of property values in Brookville. Yet the correlation alone amounts to scant evidence of the claimed cause-and-effect relationship. It is possible that other factors, such as the improvement of traffic condition or the environment, directly promote the property values in Brookville. Without ruling out other possible reason, the arguer cannot convince me that it is just because of restrictions that have tripled the property values in Brookville.

Finally, the argument relies on what might be a false analogy. The arguer simply assumes that property in Deerhaven Acres would raise now as it did in Brookville seven years ago, but he does not provide any evidence that it is indeed the case. It is possible that the circumstances involving the two places differentiate significantly. It is also possible that in seven years, many things change rapidly. Any of the scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the recommendation to adopt such restrictions.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the arguer must provide more evidence to confirm that homeowners in Brookvelle community implemented the restrictions seriously. To better assess the argument I need more information about the similarity of the two places.