argument2 第一次发帖，欢迎各位帮忙修改

enzymaticUID: 209726

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 house painting."
WORDS: 405          TIME: 0:29:27          DATE: 2006-3-8

In this argument, the arguer concludes that all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites that average property values in nearby Brookvile community have tripled by doing so. To corroborate the conclusion, the arguer assumes that the Deerhaven Acres will achieve the same success by taking the same measures with Brookvile. However, a careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it accomplishes little towards supporting what the arguer maintains.

To begin with, the arguer commits the fallacy of all things are equal and assumes that situation seven years ago are the same with that of today. It is unfairly for the arguer to take it for granted that things happened seven years ago are convincing. It is entirely possible that economic conditions, price levels and consumer's conceptions are quite different now and, take these possibilities into consideration, the example cited by the arguer provides vacant evidence for this argument.

In the second place, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the restrictions and the average property value increase. No evidence is provided by the arguer to demonstrate that the restrictions are responsible for the value increase. Perhaps the average property values tripled because the price level in these cities is increased and consequently the value will increase along with the price level. It is just as likely that value increased because population increased and the house is in shortage. As the arguer fails to exclude these and other possibilities, the causal relationship assumed by the arguer is incredible.

Last but not the least, even granting that the above two assumptions are credible, the arguer still make a false analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres. The arguer provides no evidence to demonstrate that these two cities are comparable. It is entirely possible that the consumers' conceptions of these two cities are quite different and people in Deerhaven Acres do not like houses in unity style. The fact that the arguer fails to excludes these and those possibilities diminish the credibility of this argument.

As it stands, this argument lacks credibility because the evidence provided by the arguer fails to lend strong support to what the conclusion. To solidify the conclusion, the arguer should provide more information to demonstrate the casual relationship between restrictions and value increase. To better evaluate the argument we need more information about the present situation about two cities.