Argument2 【加州阳光】第一次作业 我爱砖头

benniUID: 2166321

论证部分提纲：

1、因果错误：升值与规定没有必然联系

2、错误类比：两社区的客观差异

3、inefficient solution: 应调查是否有更有效的方法（存疑中…）

4、无据推理：这烂规定现在吃香，将来可未必:victory:


正文：

In this letter, the author, the member of the committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres recommends a means by which would multiple the property values in Deehaven Acres. To support the recommendation, the author points out that homeowners in Brookville community has adopted a set of restrictions seven years ago and in present day, its average property values have tripled. Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals that it lends no credible support to the recommendation.

First of all, the argument still provides little evidence that the increasing of property values is rightly due to the set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscape and what colors the exteriors of the community's yards should be painted. Perhaps the reason why people choose to live in Brookville is the superior transportation condition to other communities or the abundant entertainment venues in there, or a recent popular film is shot in Brookville which has indirectly advertised for this community. It is also perhaps that people in Brookville actually do not like the restrictions at all, they choose these houses just because of the recent discovered thermal spring there which greatly contributes to health. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for the increasing property values in Brookville the author cannot convince me that to copy the restrictions would benefit for Deerhaven Acres.

Secondly, the reason rests on the assumption that the Brookville community is analogous to the Deerhaven Acres in all respects. This assumption is weak, since although there might be points of comparison between the two adjacent  communities, there must also be many dissimilarities in different aspects, such as transportation condition and living standard, which are unjustifiably overlooked by the author. For example, perhaps the two communities are totally in two different countries or hold opposite religious belief which largely influences human activities, even though they are near.

Even assuming that the triple increasing of values in Brookville is due to the restrictions on house painting and landscape, the author just states the statistic in Brookville, while there might be other communities adopt different ways to better and faster maximize the profit than the community the author mentioned. It is entirely possible that certain community has harnessed a more economic method which have successfully made the average property values tripled during only two years. If so, why do not Deerhaven learn from the wiser one?

Finally, the author also commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”. Even though the restrictions in Brookville indeed have been a factor to the increasing property values during the past years, the author unfoundedly further assumes that this trend will continue in the foreseeable future.

In sum, the recommendation relies on some doubtful assumptions that make it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the argument the author must provide clear evidence--perhaps by way of a survey—to claim the reason for the people’s choosing Brooville’s houses as their residence is rightly because of the set of restrictions stated in the letter. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the analogy of Brookville and Deerhaven Acres and the potential renters' opinions about those restrictions.

谢谢帮俺提高的好心人！

jj7710UID: 204058

论证部分提纲：

1、因果错误：升值与规定没有必然联系

2、错误类比：两社区的客观差异

3、inefficient solution: 应调查是否有更有效的方法（存疑中…）

4、无据推理：这烂规定现在吃香，将来可未必


正文：

In this letter, the author, the member of the committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres recommends a means by（可去掉） which would multiple the property values in Deehaven Acres. To support the recommendation, the author points out that homeowners in Brookville community has adopted a set of restrictions seven years ago and in present day, its average property values have tripled. Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals that it lends no credible support to the recommendation.

First of all, the argument still provides little evidence that the increasing of property values is rightly due to the set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscape（d） and what colors the exteriors of the community's yards should be painted. Perhaps the reason why people choose to live in Brookville is the superior transportation condition to other communities or the abundant entertainment venues in（去掉） there, or a recent popular film is shot in Brookville which has indirectly advertised for this community. It is also perhaps that people in Brookville actually do not like the restrictions at all, they choose these houses just because of the recent discovered thermal spring there which greatly contributes to health. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for the increasing property values in Brookville the author cannot convince me that to copy the restrictions would benefit for Deerhaven Acres.

Secondly, the reason rests on the assumption that the Brookville community is analogous to the Deerhaven Acres in all respects. This assumption is weak, since although there might be points of comparison between the two adjacent  communities, there must also be many dissimilarities in different aspects, such as transportation condition and living standard, which are unjustifiably overlooked by the author. For example, perhaps the two communities are totally in two different countries or hold opposite religious belief which largely influences human activities, even though they are near.

Even assuming that the triple increasing of values in Brookville is due to the restrictions on house painting and landscape, the author just states the statistic in Brookville, while there might be other communities adopt different ways to better and faster maximize the profit than the community the author mentioned. It is entirely possible that certain community has harnessed a more economic method which have successfully made the average property during only two years. If so, values tripled why do not Deerhaven learn from the wiser one?

Finally, the author also commits the fallacy of “all things are equal”. Even though the restrictions in Brookville indeed have been a factor to the increasing property values during the past years, the author unfoundedly further assumes that this trend will continue in the foreseeable future.

In sum, the recommendation relies on some doubtful assumptions that make it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the argument the author must provide clear evidence--perhaps by way of a survey—to claim the reason for the people’s choosing Brooville’s houses as their residence is rightly because of the set of restrictions stated in the letter. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the analogy of Brookville and Deerhaven Acres and the potential renters' opinions about those restrictions.

写的很好，理由充分，证据完全。难得的是楼主怎么找到那么多攻击点，向楼主学习！
好似长了一点！

benniUID: 2166321

谢谢楼上的，我也觉得长...这篇没限时