Argument2 Thrive小组第1次作业

eversleepingUID: 2438219

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."

正文：
This argument is not as well-reasoned as it appears to be. A close scrutiny of the arguer’s use of evidence
and line of reasoning reveals several fallacies that undermine the logical soundness of this argument.

First of all, the arguer assumes that it was the set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting that gave rise to the increase in average property values. However, the mere fact that average property values tripled in Brookville after the restrictions were adopted does not provide strong evidence to such an assumption. In fact, the increase in average property values could be attributed to other reasons rather than the adoption of such restrictions. For example, it is possible that Brookville community focus on the environment protection during the past seven years, thus attracted people who are concerned about health. What is more, perhaps new schools, hospitals or shopping malls were set up in Brookville in the past seven years, as a result, people were more willing to settle down there to enjoy more convenient daily life. Without ruling out such possibilities, the causal relationship assumed is obviously unwarranted.

Even if the assumption is valid, the arguer still cannot assert that the restrictions of landscaping and housepainting, which helps raising the property values in Brookville, would also works in Deerhaven Acres. This is because differences between these two communities might influence the effectiveness of the restrictions. Perhaps the location of Deerhaven Acres community is not as attractive as that of Brookville, and the structure of the houses in Deerhaven Acres is inferior to that in Brookville. Thus the restrictions are not going to help if people concern more about the other aspects of the community than the exterior of houses. Such differences must be taken into consideration before assertion was put forward, otherwise, the affirmation is unpersuasive.

What is more, even assuming that no differences exist between the two communities, the soundness of the reasoning is still doubtable because of the neglect of the fact that the restrictions was adopted in Brookville seven years ago. Changes that taken place during this period of time should be pay attention to. Probably, homeowners nowadays enjoy decorating their houses and yards in their own way, and people prefer purchasing houses with unique outlooks to buying those with machine-made exteriors. If so, it would be ineffective to imitate what has done seven years ago. To strengthen the argumentation, the arguer should rule out the influence of time.

To sum up, the argument suffers from the logical fallacies mentioned above, thus unpersuasive.

提纲：
1.       B地的地产平均价格提高不一定是由于规定的实施；
2.       即使所述规定是地产平均价格得以提高的原因，仅凭两地临近不能说明B地的措施适用于D地；
3.       即使忽略地区的差异，时间的跨度仍然使结论不成立——B地的规定是7年前实施的。




[ 本帖最后由 eversleeping 于 2008-2-2 21:22 编辑 ]