ARGUMENT2今天写的，才242字，怎么得了哦

barbi918UID: 2142205

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: 242          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-4-10

In the letter , the argument claimed that the inorder to rasie property values,DA community should adopt their set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.To demonstrate the claim, he cited the evidenve that seven years ago Brookvill community adopted the same restriction and the average values of the property trilped since then.Though it seems reasonable at the first galce, I am afraid the claim is hard to bear a further consideration,because there are several fallacies in it.

To begin with, the arguer commited a hasty generalization.He infered that by following the same way of what the Brookvill did seven years before the DA can gain a property raising. However ,I can see no evidence that the DA has any similary with the Brookvill in location and fascilation.It is entirly possible that the raising of property dues to the good location in a business striction of downtown and a crown of people searching work and living here.On the contravary, the  DA may locate at a rural restriction far away from the house needing.Lacking the evidence that the two communities are complete the same in every aspect, the arguer can not equal the DA to the Brookvill and draw a unreliable conclusion.

Next, the arguer confuses the time consequence with the causl-and-effect relationship.In the arguement ,it is only said that since the restriction was adopted the average value in Brookvill have tripled.However,whether the raising actually caused by the restriction is not known at all.Futhermore, the proverty raising of the  Brookvill entirely has no relevance with the adopted restriction, and even the restriction has never be exert substancially.Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer can not justifiably conclued that the consist landscaping and housepainting will help to promote the prosperaty of the AD community.

Finally, the arguer failed to take account to the time change. Even if I conced that the restriction has been exerted and it is the restriction that make an effort to the property thriving, it is should not be overlooked that the Brookvill made it seven years ago.The world is changing, people seldom like the out-fashioned things.So adopting the same way of what Brookvill did  seven years before cannot be taken seriously.

In sum, the arguer faild to demonstrate the two communities are completely similar, and rendered no evidence that the raising property dues to the exerting of the restriction rather than other reasons.In addition, he has not verify the house style fashion nowadays is still the same as seven years before.To strength his argument , the arguer should give more details to illustrate the deficiences above.