Argument2 越洋农场站队快组，我补作业！

panegyricUID: 2218502

2提纲：
1，        首先，两地的房地产业的状况可能并不具有可比性。B的地价增长可能是因为其优越的地理位置，便利的交通，丰富的旅游资源，D虽然很近可能在这
些方面就要差很多
2，        B的地价增长还可能因为其经济的快速增长带动，这在七年中是完全有可能的，而并不是因为所谓的统一。
3，        统一可能会引起人们的不满，而不愿搬进来，影响地价

正文：
The author enthusiastically advocates the implication of landscape and home color restriction in D as nearby community B did seven years ago, for the average property value of B has tripled since than. Nonetheless, Whether the significant economical growth of B is attributable to the restriction, or whether this restriction would work on D is simply not clear, for the author has not provide any proof to support the cause-and-effect relationship between them.

First of all, the author fails to provide the comparison of economic and geographical conditions between B and D, which significantly influence whether this restriction would contributing to D' financial increase. Besides the landscape, there are many promising factors which are attractive to investors. For instance, B is a crucial transporting nexus where several vital roads converge. As transportation is becoming ever convenient and of paramount importance in commercial activities and everyday usage, it is almost impossible for its average property value to keep steady, and in view of its possible advantageous geographical location, remarkable increase is not surprising. Also, perhaps B is famous for its natural beauty and is a perfect sight-seeing point, like a city abut to sea or a natural park with fabulous waterfall or various cute animals which can barely be seen about. In these instances listed above, D probably can not get as much advantages from this landscape restriction as B do, for its natural sight is not so appealing or its geographical location is not so important.

Secondly, as the text indicated, there is a time lapse of seven years between restriction implementing and property value tripling, period long enough for bringing certain more slow acting factors to full play like the economy or favorable policies compared with yard restriction or house painting. Whether the prize increase is triggered by this regulation or by other catalyst is unclear in the argument. Providing B enjoy a comparatively favorable geographical location, as the above assumed, transportation or tourism might acts as the final accelerator of the economy prosperity thus the increase of property value, and has bear no relationship with this restriction. Even this restriction has ever contributed to the increase is unclear, and its uniformly appearance might functions as encumbrance of its increase.
  
Furthermore, even if B's tripled prize is bestowed by its implication, there is no evidence in the text to guarantee its effect on D, for their similarity is not thoroughly attested and supported. Finally, this kind of compulsive regulation would probably go against the willingness of prospective customers. There is no evidence to sustain the presumption that they would willing to accept this requisition, and in the common view this kind of uniform is at least unpalatable even repulsive to the promising house-owners. Admittedly, uniformity perhaps is contributories to exterior appearance, yet for the property value to increase, the will of house-owners is influential and can not be neglected. Therefore, whether the implication of this kind of uniformity would facilitate its property sale should be reexamined.

In sum, before extending the landscape restriction to D, the ultimate causation of property value increase in B should be seriously investigated, and the comparability between B and D should checked. Anyway, the author is somewhat too hasty to reach any reliable conclusion.