argument2 sunbird第二次作业

琼歌UID: 2378080

In this letter, the author recommended that Deerhaven (DA) community should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting, in order to raise property values of DA. To support this recommendation, the author pointed out that the same restrictions, concerned about the exteriors of homes, have adopted by Brookville (BR) community seven years ago which  bring the raise of property values successfully. Close scrutiny on the argument, reveals logical flaws is existent.

To begin with, this recommendation rested on the assumption that the BR homeowners really implement the restrictions. However, it has a great chance that most of the homeowners are eager to have a unique house; thus, the restrictions have never been carried out completely, let alone to have any impact on the property values. Lacking sufficient evidence of the restrictions have been implemented strictly, the committee cannot convince me on the basis of them that the restrictions affect the property values of BR.

Secondly, even BR homeowners follow the restrictions on landscaping and house painting, it not indicate that it is the certain reason lead to the elevation of property values. Perhaps, a new railway is built though the BR, and more people want to buy the house because of the convenient transportation condition. Or, perhaps, seven years ago, some report claims that the climate of BR is comfortable and benefit to health, and this attract people who pursue a healthy life. In short, without ruling out these and other possibilities, the recommendation is remain unconvinced.

Moreover, even if the adoption of restrictions on exterior of house and landscaping seven years ago caused increase of property value, it is unfair to claim the same thing will happen in DA today. After all, seven years can change anything. Maybe seven years ago, people were in favor of consistent exterior, while they are more interested in unique style now. Additionally, the author overlooks the difference between areas that might help to bring about a different result for DA, or even lead to decrease of property value. Without accounting for these and other possible dissimilarities, the committee cannot assume that the rising of property will happen in DA as well.

In sum, to strengthen the recommendation, the author should supple sufficient evidence that the restriction in BR is responsible for the rise of property value, and same thing undoubtedly happen in DA as well.