argument2 [0806G-desperado小组]第二次作业 by anndy

anndyUID: 2436020

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."

Outline：
1．             Brookville可以做到，不一定Deerhaven Acres就可以做到
2．             没有给出理由说明Brookville的财产翻翻是完全由严格规划造成的
3．             Brookville的例子是几年前，不一定现在还适用
4．             不一定非要使用这种方法，没有说明其它方法不行

The argument concludes with that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, a set of restrictions on landscaping and houspainting should be adopted. The conclusion just relies on the successful case of Brookville seven years ago. However, it may be a false analogy between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville. And the arguer overlooks many other factors, which make the conclusion be unpersuasive.

First of all, the argument relies on what may be a false analogy between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville. The fact that Brookville can adopt the set of restrictions can’t infer that Deerhaven Acres can do that also. Perhaps Brookville have planned in the beginning of construction of the community’s yards and buildings. Perhaps Brookville is just a small community which is suitable for those restrictions. However, Is it feasible to rebuild Deerhaven Acres according to the restrictions? How much is the cost? The conclusion overlooks this problem is obviously an arbitrary decision.

Moreover, even though Deerhaven Acres can rebuild the community according to the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. Property values of Deerhaven Acres are not surely to raise. Because the arguer doesn’t analyze the cause-to-result relation between the restrictions on building and the raising of property values.  Perhaps the property values’ rising just result from other reasons. Such as: the layout of the building, or the surrounding. Unless the arguer compares Deerhaven Acres with Brookville at all of the other aspect which may affect the community’s property value, I can’t agree with the arguer’s view about rising of the property value.

Thirdly, Brookville adopted the set of restrictions at seven years ago. How to prove the action will work in future? Perhaps seven years ago, people didn’t see that design style ever. So Brookville can attractive lots of investment in that era. Perhaps today this style can be seen every where, and has no economic value. However, the arguer doesn’t inform me any information about this problem.

Finally, any other schemes aren’t brought forward to compare with adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. Perhaps keeping the community’s clean is enough to raise the property value. Or the surrounding must to be neatened. Why their own set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting should be adopted?

In sum, the arguer didn’t consider instance from case to case, just draw the conclusion relies on what may be a false analogy. The relation between the rising of property values and the restrictions should be clarified. Then the time fact should be considered, and the cost must to be measured. Meanwhile, other feasible schemes should compare with this one before doing the final decision.

grace040802UID: 2348819

The arguer concludes that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, a set of restrictions on landscaping and houspainting should be adopted. The conclusion just relies on the successful case of Brookville seven years ago. However, it may be a false analogy between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville. And the arguer overlooks many other factors, which makes the conclusion be unpersuasive.

First of all, the argument relies on what may be a false analogy between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville. (good)The fact that Brookville can adopt the set of restrictions can’t infer that Deerhaven Acres can do that also. Perhaps Brookville have planned in the beginning of construction of the community’s yards and buildings. Perhaps Brookville is just a small community which is suitable for those restrictions. However, Is it feasible to rebuild (?)Deerhaven Acres according to the restrictions? How much is the cost?(用提问的方式好像立场不是坚定,应该直接将其说成the arguer的错误) The conclusion overlooks this problem is obviously an arbitrary decision.

Moreover, even though Deerhaven Acres can rebuild the community according to the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. Property values of Deerhaven Acres are not surely to raise. Because the arguer doesn’t analyze the cause-to-result relation between the restrictions on building and the raising of property values.  Perhaps the property values’ rising just result from other reasons. Such as: the layout of the building, or the surrounding. Unless the arguer compares Deerhaven Acres with Brookville at all of the other aspect which may affect the community’s property value, I can’t agree with the arguer’s view about rising of the property value.

Thirdly, Brookville adopted the set of restrictions at seven years ago. How to prove the action will work in future? Perhaps seven years ago, people didn’t see that design style ever. So Brookville can attractive lots of investment in that era. Perhaps today this style can be seen every where, and has no economic value. However, the arguer doesn’t inform me any information about this problem.

Finally, any other schemes aren’t brought forward to compare with adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. Perhaps keeping the community’s clean is enough to raise the property value. Or the surrounding must to be neatened. Why their own set of restriction on landscaping and housepainting should be adopted?

In sum, the arguer didn’t consider instance from case to case, just draw the conclusion relies on what may be a false analogy. The relation between the rising of property values and the restrictions should be clarified. Then the time fact should be considered, and the cost must to be measured. Meanwhile, other feasible schemes should compare with this one before doing the final decision.

1.觉得你的Argument进步好多,表扬一下!:loveliness:
2.但是抓住可主要的逻辑错误好像逻辑上有点不是很清晰,比如第二段和第三段其实都是在说错误类推.还有个给可以批判的就是不一定DA采取了这个措施就一定有效

加油,共同进步!