ARGUMENT2求拍，后天就考试了。十分感谢！

shemleungUID: 2299487

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."
WORDS: 418
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-7 20:53:43

In this letter the arguer recommends that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting just as what nearly Brookville community did and seemed to be successful in boosting the average property values. This argument is based on problematic reasonings and fails to convince for several reasons.

First of all, the arguer commits the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Although the property values have tripled in Brookville after the community's adoptation of restrictions on the landscape of yards and exterior color of homes, this doesn't necessarily mean that the value raising is just because of the adoption. There may be other factors affecting property values, such as Brookville made great improvement on environment, or there are new factories built in their community, which could attract more people to live there thus boost the housing market there. The mere fact of their adoptation of restrictions on landscaping and homepainting did not lend enough credits for me to believe it was the cause of the rising property values in Brookville.

Secondly, even if it was the landscaping and homepainting contributed to the tripled value in Brookville seven years ago, it tells little about how the housing market will go in the future in general. Probably residents in this region, including both Brookville and Deerhaven, have already felt that they cannot afford the continuous rising expenses on properties and the market has already been saturated. In this case, it is highly possible that the property values will drop regionally in the following years.

Finally, the arguer commits the fallacy of false analogy in this recommendation. What happened in Brookville doesn't mean similiar results would be achieved in Deerhaven Acres. Perhaps in Deerhaven Acres, the landscaping and housepainting costs are much more expensive and people are not willing to have their yards and houses look the same. They may just prefer this diversity and distinction between each other. Therefore, the adoptation of similar restrictions in Brookville may anger the residents and merchants in Deerhaven Acres and have detrimental effect on its economy.

To sum up, this argument is based on ungrounded assumptions and is easily be rejected. To strengthen it, the arguer need to establish a causal relationship between the rising property values and the adoptation of landscaping and housepainting restrictions. More information should also be provided on the property market trend and the characteristics, both similarities and differences between these two commities for evaluating the benefits for Beerhaven Acres to adopt similar restrictions as Brookville.