ARGUMENT2 by zephyrqq

zephyrqqUID: 2260290

题目：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."

提纲：
1.错误因果关系：brooville 的房地产价格增至三倍可能不是由于实行了对庭院布置和房屋粉刷的限制
2.错误类比：把现在的Deerhaven Acres和七年前的brookvil类比
3.作者忽视了其他针对Deerhaven Acres实际情况的措施，这些措施可能更加有效

"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."

The author concludes that the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres(DA) should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise property values. This conclusion rests on the experience of homeowners in Brookville community who adopt similar restrictions seven years ago and since then average property values have tripled there. Nevertheless, this evidence accomplished  nothing to convince us that the author's commendation is acceptable.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that the average property values increased greatly in Brookville after the adoption of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exterior should be painted, so the latter is caused the former. However, commonsense tells us that this is not necessarily the case. It is entirely possible that the favorable result is responsible to other measures, such as the improvement of environment, the development of economy and so forth. Without ruling out these possibilities, hardly can the author convince us the restrictions are beneficial.

Another problem with the argument is false analogy. Even assuming that restrictions on landscaping and house painting did enhance the values of property in Brookville seven years ago, the same action does not necessarily bring the similar effect now in DA, unless  the conditions and factors which may influence the value of property of these two places in different times are completely the same. The author, however, provides on information to tell us that it is the case. Perhaps,  seven years ago people in Brookville prefer to be conformity with each other to develop a sense of belonging, while nowadays in DA the majority of residents hate to be different from others. If so, the restriction may even bring down the property values in DA.

Additionally, the author neglect other measures that may raise the values of their property. Actually, taking measures according to the conditions of DA might be more effective than blindly copy the experience of Brookville to adopt restriction on house painting and landscaping. If the traffic in DA is poor, it might be wise for them to resurface rough roads or set proper regulations. And if the houses in DA are too old and therefore substandard, they might have to reinforce or rebuilt them.

For all these reasons, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To better bolster it, the author should make us believe that the adoption of a set of restriction indeed contributed significantly to the in crease of the property value in Brookville, and the conditions and factors which can influence the value of property in DA are the same as that of Brookville seven years ago. However, the author fails to do it .

[ 本帖最后由 zephyrqq 于 2008-3-6 19:30 编辑 ]