argument2习作, 请高手赐教!

zj832001UID: 2196469

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."

翻译：

七年前，临近的Brookville社区的房屋业主采纳了一系列的限制措施来规范该社区的院
子该如何来美化以及房屋的外墙该漆上什么颜色。从那时起，Brookville的地产均价翻
了三番。为了提高Deerhaven Acres的地产价格，我们应该建立起一套自己的规范美化
和上漆的限制措施。
In this letter, the author argues that all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres(DA) should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting in order to raise values in DA. To support this claim, the author points out that average property values in Brookville have tripled in that homeowners there adopted the same actions seven years ago. This argument is problematic in several critical respects.
First of all, the argument is based on a false analogy. The author simply assumes that the approach available in Brookville must be effective in DA while no evidences are provided that they are comparable. In fact, it is probably that many fundamental differences between them, such as the tastes and interests of residents in these two areas being largely unlikely, perhaps the levels of consumption cannot being unequal, and as we all know, different levels of income mean different things to be looked after .All above prove that the situations in two areas are not similar enough to justify the analogical deduction. Therefore, whether the arguer’s claiming method will work well in DA or not is dubious at best.
In the second place, the author fails to take into account other factors which may cause the increase of the average property values in Broolville, in other words ,the author groundlessly establishes a causal relationship between the increase of the average property values and restrictions on landscaping and house-painting. It is highly possible that other factors might contribute to the progress of the values .For example ,it is likely resulted from the prosperity of the economy, as improving the standard of living, which may stimulate the purchasing of the property, also may from increase of demands for houses, which is caused by the influx of extraneous persons, or the policy of the government, and so forth. Thus, without ruling out those factors, it is presumptuous to suggest that restrictions on landscaping and house-painting are responsible for increase of the average property values.
Moreover, the method is assumed without justification that background conditions remain the same at different times. The arguer unfairly infers from successful cases in the past that the same approach used nowadays will be still effective. However, he/she fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this inference .It is very likely the tastes of residents of Brookville have changed a lot, or that economic situation declined in these years, and so on. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and house-painting.
In conclusion, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To persuade me that DA should take the measures, which was used to ameliorate the price of average property in Brookville seven years ago, the author must supply clear evidence to prove that the method would be effective in DA as it did in Brookville. The author also indicates that there indeed exists a causal relationship between the increase of the average property values and restrictions on landscaping and house-painting. To better bolster the arguer's claim, I would need to know if there are any changes in conditions in two aeras at different times.