argument2 欢迎指教~留链互拍

zhengzheng1026UID: 168914

Based on a serial unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence, the arguer concludes that in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres(DA), people should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.

In the first place, the arguer provides no evidence to support that there is a causal relationship between a set of restrictions and the increased property values in Brookville(B) community. Many other factors can contribute to the increase of the property values such as the overall economic condition, people's trend of investment or a greatly increasing population. For example, it is possible that the population in DA increased considerably and then there were more housing needs, so the housing price increased naturally. Further, it is likely that the economic condition was good and many people chose to buy housing as their investments. Therefore, without ruling out these possible factors, the arguer cannot convince me that it is the set of restrictions that lead to the increased property values.

In the second place, even if the arguer can justify that the increased property values were due to the set of restrictions, the arguer offers no evidence that the set of restrictions which were established in seven years ago can still contribute to the B community's average property values at present. It is likely that the restrictions which were useful seven years ago have no use on controlling the present property values. In a word, disregarding this factor which is mentioned above, the argument is obviously dubious.

Last but not least, even though the same set of restrictions are still useful at present, the arguer ignores the differences between the DA and B community. It is possible that in B community the yards and the color of the exteriors are the main factors which can decide the property values, however, ]in DA other factors such as the positions and the area of the housing contribute more to the housing price. Moreover, even if the arguer can substantiate that the restrictions can increase the average property values in DA to some extend, he ignores other factors such as constructing more roads and shopping malls in DA which can also raise the property values significantly.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more reasonable, the arguer would have to provide more evidence to support that there is a causal relationship between the restrictions and the increasing prosperity values. To better evaluate the argument, I need to know more information about the two places in all respects.

对这样的开头有点担心，不知道行不行？？

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-3-10 11:12 编辑 ]