[a习作temp] argument2第一次习作求拍 [复制链接]

Doria_IC
UID: 2368482

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 2
寄托币: 383
注册时间: 2007-7-24
精华: 0
帖子: 5

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-1-22 17:56:02 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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 letter, the author recommends that all the homeowners of the Deerhaven Acres should adhere to a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, with the purpose of raising the property values of that region. To substantiate his/her argument, the author takes Brookville in nearby for illustration. Furthermore, the author details some of the restrictions made in Brookville, including the landscape of the community's yards as well as the exteriors of homes. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat reasonable; however, further scrutiny of each of these evidences reveals that it suffers from several critical flaws as follows, which make it questionable.

First and foremost, this argument commits a fallacy of "com hoc, ergo propter hoc" in assuming that raising of property value results from the restriction taken there. However, the mere positive correlation between the adoption of several restriction in Brookville and the increase of its property value does not necessary prove a causal relationship. Many other reasons, such as the government bringing new industry there, may also result in the appreciation of Brookville's property value, or perhaps the rise of average price of common things there attributes to the increased value of the real estate. Without ruling out these alternative factors, the argument falls into unreasonable.

Secondly, even if I were to concede that the raising of real estate in Brookville results from the restriction of landscaping and housepainting there, the author still commits a fallacy of "false analogy" in assuming that the success case is applicable to Deerhaven Acres (DA). Even DA is very near to Brookville, they are still two different places and people's custom of one region may be totally opposite to the other. One possible scenario is that people in Brookville are more likely to be identical with others, while people in DA pursue personalities and different styles of housepainting and landscaping. Forcing the housepainting and landscaping into one restricted style maybe lead to losing the potential buyers who are fond in the multiple architecture styles in DA. Thus, the author's failure to consider these differences between Brookville and DA makes his/her recommendation unconvincing.

Thirdly, even if I were to concede that the increase of the average price of the property in Brookville results from its restriction and DA region is the same as Brookville, the author still commits a fallacy of "all things are equal" in assuming that the success case in Brookville would remain unchanged after seven years. What the people like and dislike seven years ago cannot explain the taste of people nowadays. It is entirely possible that the customers who chose to be identical to others seven years ago are more likely to prefer to be different and personalized because of the ever-increasing pace of life and the diversity of lifestyles. The author overlooks the possible changes during seven years renders this argument highly suspect.

In sum, the author's recommendation is weak. To strengthen it the writer should take into consideration of the deference between the two places. To better support his/her perspectives, a reliable survey should be taken to make sure of people's taste nowadays.

[ 本帖最后由 Doria_IC 于 2008-1-22 18:07 编辑 ]