Argue2[再战gre小组]第一次作业by Jwill55

JasonDoveUID: 2322013

请多指教哈

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."




In this argument,the author draws the conclusion that Deerhaven Acres(D) should adopt the policy that Brookville used seven years ago in order to increase their property values.To substantiate his conclusion the author pointed out the after enforced the policy seven years ago the property value in B had tripled.In addition,he claims that if D could adopt B's policy the property value in B would get increase as B did.This argument is somewhat convincing at first glance,however, it is not well-reasoned or well-organized. From my prospective,this argument suffers from several logical flaws.

First and foremost,based on the fact that B's property values tripled after the enforcement of the policy the author infers that the policy is responsible for the increase in B's property values.However,common sense informs me that the author's inference is unwarrented.A myriad of other factors including the increasing demand of houses in the area of B and the community's merit policy in administrating are much more likely to be the cause of the increase rather than which color the houses were painted.In the absent of these possible facters,the author's statement is logically unacceptible.

Secondly,even if the author modified his foregoing analysis, the author's conclusion depend on the assumption that deverse conditions in B do not change with time.However,there is no clear evidence show that this assumption is reliable.It is entirely possible there are less people live in B's community now ,or even no people.If so,the author cannot draw any conclusion that the policy of B can be effective to increase D's property values.

Thridly,the author's reconmmendation relies on what might be a false analogy between B and D.This analogy depend on the assumption that weather condition,land condition as well as traffic situation in both of the two places are all similar.However,it is likely that there are many incomparalities exist between B and D,and some other factors are as likely be the cause of B's property value's increase.To be specific,maybe traffic in D is not as convinient as that of Bor weather in D is severely cold,and so forthe.Any of these senarios,if true would make the aurhor's statement unconvincing.In short,without ruling out such possiblities the author's cannot reaonably persude me that D can reap the similar benefit from the policy be used formerly.

To sum up,the author fails to substantiate his conclusion that D's property values would get increased if D can adopt B's former policy.Because the evidences the author cites does not lend strong support to what he maintains.To make his statement more convincing the author should provide us more persuasive evidence with regard to the house and people's living condition now and also seven years ago.Additionally,he should prove me that it is the policy that make B's property values tripled.Therefore,only included factors discussed above can the argument become more than an emotional appeal.