【0806G-奋斗小组】 第7次作业

rickltUID: 2281556

Argument2:The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres.
第三次argue，正在逐渐赶上进度

  The author's argument seems to be sound and appealing at first glance that residents in Deerhaven should take restrictions on housepainting and beautifing so that property values can raise. The conclusion is based on the reason that property values have tripled since community there made restrictions for homeowners on such respects. However, I'm afraid that further consideration reveals that it suffers from several flaws.
  
  Brookville community adopted restrictions seven years ago. It is a sufficiently long interim period during which many things might have changed. For example, great changes on transportation in Brookville may have happened so that owing to the convenient traffic, more residents prefer to purchase real estate there. Or perhaps facilitates, such as schools and aid centres have been newly settled or improved. So on this respect, without given more details, I think the conclusion rests on the assumption that during seven years all conditions remain unchanged. Residents in Deerhaven Acres can not rely on it to draw any convincing case.

  Even if I were to concede that everything remains changeless, the author ignores the strong possibility that houspainting and landscaping are not the only facts affecting property values. Common sense informs us that a variety of other factors, such as traffic and facilities, as mentioned above, or a shopping centre, also play important roles. Another situation that the author overlooks is that our values could have been raised more than three times, which sounds a bit ridiculous but it is indeed possible. A similar appearance denies personality, makes people feeling dull, thus preventing them from moving into Deerhaven Acres. Without ruling out alternative means of raising the real estate values, I can not accept the adoption of restrictions.

  Besides, in order to draw the conclusion, the author compared the two uptowns to extent of appearance. However, differences between Brookville and Deerhaven can clearly outweigh the similarities. Without considering the distribution of career, financial capability and so forth, the author make the argument highly suspect. For example, it is entirely possible that the residents in Brookville are employees in one big company, while Brookville happens to be the nearest uptown to workplace, then the property values raise.

  Overall, the author failed to validate the conclusion that Deerhaven community should set restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To make it logically acceptable, the author would have to prove the exact relation between real estate values and set of restrictions. And the argument would be further improved by ruling out the possibilities that would undermine what the author claims.