argument2 【越洋农场】三周慢组作业

huhu_zsuUID: 2183490

Argument2
用时：30分钟；修改：30分钟。
字数：511

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."


In this argument, the author suggest that residents in Deerhaven Acres(DA) should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting since homeowners in Brookwille community(BC) did this seven years ago and are seeing their property values tripled now. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

In the first place, the author does not give us any evidence that homeowners in BC did adopt the set of restrictions. Common sense tells us that most people prefer decorating their home in their own way to following others’ restrictions. Therefore, it is entirely possible that many residents in BC did not landscape their yards and color the exteriors of homes as the community demanded. If this situation did happen, then any change in BC’s property value can not be attributed to the set of restrictions. Consequently, the author can not draw any conclusion from BC’s situation nor imagine what effect homeowners in DA will obtain when they adopt similar restrictions.

In the second place, even assuming that residents in BC implemented the set of restriction, this argument is still not convincing as it stands due to little evidence is provided by author that the increase value of property is resulted from the restrictions. As we know, there are many factors contribute to the rising of property's value, such as need and demand of consumers, locality of the house,  the internal decoration and so forth. Without ruling out these factors and other possible reasons, the argument cannot convince me on the basis of them that the restriction is the only reason for the rising of property value, let alone that homeowners in DA should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.

In the third place, provided that the restriction was responsible for the increase in property value of BC, it is still not persuasive to assert that homeowner in DA should adopt their own set of restriction. For one thing, same measure is not necessarily effective in different places. Without supporting evidence indicate that the home-consumers in BC like the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting, it is so early to advocate that this restriction will help enhance the property values. To the contrary, it may exert a negative impact on the value of property. For another, a considerable period of seven years has passed since BC adopted the set of restriction, situation of demand and supply for home may be totally different. It is doubtful that this measure still works today as seven years ago.

To sum up, the argument relies on several assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. In order to bolster the recommendation, the author must provide evidence that homeowners in BC did adopt the set of restrictions and the triple value of property is due to the restrictions. To better assess the recommendation I would need more evidence --perhaps by market research--that consumers in DA like the restrictions of the home and homeowners in DA are willing to adopt the restrictions.

[ 本帖最后由 huhu_zsu 于 2006-6-25 10:24 编辑 ]