argument2 自由女神第15次作业

mh1988UID: 2189586

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: 400          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-24

   The allegation that a set of restriction resulted in the increasing of the property value in Brookville is questionable, thus the conclusion that the residents in Deerhaven Acres should adopt the same restriction is not persuasive. Without providing the evident to substantiate that it is indeed the restriction raise the property value and Deerhaven Acres would benefit from this kind of restriction, the author fails to convince us that the conclusion is correct.
   First of all, it is implied in the statement that a set of restrictions implemented seven years ago still affected the property value. However, the author does not provide any evidence to show us whether this kind of restriction still worked in Brookville today. It is very possible that a set of restrictions indeed were adopted and implemented seven years ago but have been destroyed today. If it is in this case, the assumption that the restrictions resulted in the increasing of property value is meaningless.
   Even assuming that the restrictions still work, the author does not provide any evidence to ensure that the rise of property value should be attributed to the restrictions. It is very possible that many other factors influence the property value in Brookville. Perhaps in seven years the industry of brookville has a great achievement and thousands of migrants come to Brookville to find a job. Accordingly, more houses were needed and the price of property of course would rise. Another possibility, Without excluding these possibilities that would influence the property value, the author fails to convince us that it is a set of restrictions raise the property value in Brookville.
   Even assuming that the restrictions indeed works in Brookeville, the author fails to take into account the different situations between two different cities and it is possible that the same restrictions would not lead to the same result. Assuming that Brookville is a city with beautiful landscape and modern constructions, the restriction resulting the same exteriors adds color to the city. As a result the property value increasing is not surprise. On the contrary, Deerhaven Acres is traditional and grave city, the same restriction would make the houses not harmony to its surrounding. Therefore, without providing us the evidence that the restriction is suit to houses in Deerhaven Acres, the author should not draw the conclusion that the restriction should be adopted.
    In sum,