Argument 2 希望得到大家的帮忙

wuwenjuUID: 2191621

OUTLINE
1 错误类比：指出交通， 居住的问题
2 B地区价格的提高不一定是因为图了色，也许另有他因
3 充要条件

In this argument, the arguer concludes that Deerhaven Acres(DA) should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To substantiate this conclusion , the arguer cites the evidence that the average of property values in Brookville have tripled after the set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. This line of reasoning is biased due to inadequacy and partiality in the nature of evidence provided to justify this conclusion.

First and foremost, the arguer assumes that the set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted is available to Brookville is also effective to DA. However, there are some variations between these two cities so that this set is apposite to DA, such as the problem of transportation. Or perhaps the property values in DA have been higher than Brookville, and thereby this set is useless for DA. Lacking evidence that conditions in these two cities are relevantly similar, the arguer cannot convince that this set is effective to DA.

Secondly, the arguer simply attributes the increase of average property values to the exertion of this set, both of which happened in succession. However, the sequence of elevation of property values is result from other policy of Brookville. It is likely that the government of Brookville enacted the provisions which are propitious for businessmen and to attract them to build their enterprise in Brookville. In short, because the arguer fails to rule out scenario such as the above mentioned, I find the recommendation is unconvincing.

Finally, the arguer infers that adoption the set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting is a necessary and sufficient condition to raise property values in DA. However, reducing the tax can be serve as a better solution than the one that mentioned by the arguer. Even if this set is adopted by the government, the arguer does not provide any credible evidence to support that raising property values can be warranted.

To sum up, the conclusion is unpersuasive because the evidence cited in the analysis does not shed any strong support on what the arguer maintains. The arguer cannot convince me the assertion until he provides the evidence that the conditions in these two cities are quite similar so as to assure the success of this set. To better evaluate this argument, I need more information about the location of DA and the state of economy here.