argument2

christinapcUID: 2296719

This letter argues that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, the homeowners in Deerhaven community should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting as the set which the nearby Brookville community adopted seven years ago. Brookville’s set included the restrictions on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. The letter points out that since seven years ago, average property values have tripled in Brookville. The argument is logically unconvincing in several respects.

To begin with, the argument depends on the assumption that the average property values raised in Brookville because of Brookville’s set of restrictions----rather than for some other reason. Yet lacking evidence to the contrary it is entirely possible that the property values were rise by the population increasing, the comm. Development, or other factor. Without ruling out all other reason why the property values might have increased in Brookville, the argument that Deerhaven Acres’ property values can raise by adopting similar set of restrictions is dubious at best.

Even if Brookville’s set of restrictions did in fact serve to help Brookville’s property values raising, the letter unfairly assumes that the similar set will carry a similar result for Deerhaven. It is entirely possible that the two communities differ in ways that would undermine the effectiveness of similar sets for Deerhaven. For instance, perhaps the residents in Deerhaven prefer varied yards and the exterior of homes in different colors; or perhaps they pay more attention on other factors of a community than the yard and the color. Without accounting for such differences any analogy between the two cities is premature, and any conclusion based on that analogy is unjustified.

Furthermore, the author’s inference that set which was effective in the past will also be effective in the future rests on the poor assumption that during the last seven years all conditions upon which their effectiveness depend have remained unchanged. Perhaps the general economy is expected to turn down. Or perhaps other communities have recently begun to provide similar incentives. Indeed, the fact that Brookville is already proving this set might actually portend failure for Deerhaven, which might need to have even stronger set to convince homebuyer to move to Deerhaven rather than Brookville.

To sum up, the letter fails to consider any other course of action that might help Deerhaven attain the property value goals. To bolster the argument the author must provide clear evidence that Brookville’s set ---and not some other phenomenon----was in fact responsible for rising Brookville’s property values during the last seven years. To better assess the argument I would need to know what other conditions in Deerhaven that were not present in Brookville might dissuade homebuyers from moving to Deerhaven-----despite the proposed set. Finally, to better evaluate the argument we would need more information about some other proposed sets

刚好写了这个，第一篇argument练笔。按北美写的，是不是太雷同了……

kb911 第五次的作业也是这个，不如你们加我吧~~谢谢谢谢