argument2[aero小组] 第6次作业 by liuyingbnu

liuyingbnuUID: 2321970

The letter addressed by a committee highly recommends that all the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres (DA) should adopt restrictions on landscaping and house painting in hopes of enhancing property values. To substantiate his claim, the author cites the example in nearby Brookville community. However reasonable it seems to be, the argument is weak in reasoning with the insufficient evidence.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the restrictions on the exteriors of homes in Brookville are implemented. From the information so far available, we find no sign of relevant evidence to justify the assertion. If the restrictions have never been put into practice, or people drop it because they consider it without a promising future, the conclusion that people in Brookville benefit from it is open to doubt.

Secondly, even accepting the assumption that the restrictions are implemented, we can scarcely further infer that the restrictions are the only factors contributable to the property values being tripled. Possibly, a flux of population in Brookville raises the need of house or house available is in short or the importance of Btookville in transportation is highlighted since seven years ago or there is an inevitable inflation in Brookville. Considering the fact that restrictions in Brookville are practiced seven years ago, hypothesis mentioned above are quite possible. The author fails to rule out these and other available possibilities that lead to the property sharp increase; therefore the claim is unconvincing.

Thirdly, the arguer also commits a fallacy of false analogy for he hardly provides evidence that these two communities are similar enough in every aspect to draw such a conclusion. Probably, residences in DA who are in pursuit of individual identity dislike the identical exteriors of homes. If so, after implementing the restriction, the property values will possibly decline instead of increasing drastically.

Forth, other suggestions that may be effective in increasing the property values in DA is neglected by the authors. If there are better methods to achieve this aim, the recommendation should be further considered and compared with other solutions. Otherwise, the claim seems to be achieved without solid ground.

To sum up, the argument is unreasonable as it stands. To better evaluate it, the author should provide clear and sufficient evidence that the restrictions are implemented and that they are the only factors that contribute to the enhancement of property values. Further, the author should points out these two communities are similar enough in every aspects and that there are not better solutions to the problem. Otherwise, still will I withdraw my credence towards this proposal.

xuj401UID: 2434494

The letter addressed by a committee highly recommends that all the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres (DA) should adopt restrictions on landscaping and house painting in hopes of enhancing property values. To substantiate his claim, the author cites the example in nearby Brookville community. However reasonable it seems to be, the argument is weak in reasoning with the insufficient evidence.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the restrictions on the exteriors of homes in Brookville are implemented. From the information so far available, we find no sign of relevant evidence to justify the assertion. If the restrictions have never been put into practice, or people drop it because they consider it without a promising future, the conclusion that people in Brookville benefit from it is open to doubt.

Secondly, even accepting the assumption that the restrictions are implemented, we can scarcely further infer that the restrictions are the only factors contributable to the property values being tripled. Possibly, a flux of population in Brookville raises the need of house or house available is in short or the importance of Btookville in transportation is highlighted since seven years ago or there is an inevitable inflation in Brookville. Considering the fact that restrictions in Brookville are practiced seven years ago, hypothesis mentioned above are quite possible. The author fails to rule out these and other available possibilities that lead to the property sharp increase; therefore the claim is unconvincing.

Thirdly, the arguer also commits a fallacy of false analogy for he hardly provides evidence that these two communities are similar enough in every aspect to draw such a conclusion. Probably, residences in DA who are in pursuit of individual identity dislike the identical exteriors of homes. If so, after implementing the restriction, the property values will possibly decline instead of increasing drastically.

Forth, other suggestions that may be effective in increasing the property values in DA is neglected by the authors. If there are better methods to achieve this aim, the recommendation should be further considered and compared with other solutions. Otherwise, the claim seems to be achieved without solid ground.

To sum up, the argument is unreasonable as it stands. To better evaluate it, the author should provide clear and sufficient evidence that the restrictions are implemented and that they are the only factors that contribute to the enhancement of property values. Further, the author should points out these two communities are similar enough in every aspects and that there are not better solutions to the problem. Otherwise, still will I withdraw my credence towards this proposal.

反驳很有力，格式套路上也相当不错，最好考虑一下几点理由之间的安排顺序。