arg2 0607GMYTH组 第1次作业 PPMMSS

ppmmssUID: 205288

In this argument, the arguer attempts to recommends that it would raise property values in Deerhaven Acres if they begin to restrict on landscaping and house painting as Brookville. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of Brookville, where the community adopted a set of restrictions on how the yards should be landscaping and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painting, which presents throughout the argument, however, is insufficient and unreliable. In addition, the assumption underlying the analysis "Deerhaven Acres should follow Brookville" is groundless. In one word, the argument is unconvincing for suffering from several critical flaws.

First of all, the arguer makes a false analogy. The whole analysis is based on the gratuitous presume "Brookvills do....., so we should do......". But the problem is that the two areas are similar enough to justify the analogy deduction. Before making a comprehensive investigation such as historical factor, the tradition of the residents and all the other fact that would support the hypothesis, any conclusion is premature. Furthermore, the arguer fails to demonstrate that the homeowner and the number of houses and some other living conditions in Deerhaven are the same with in Brookville, which are the determination data for the value of the house. To conclusion, there is no data available evidence to support the presume, so suspicion is reasonable. As we know, any hypothesis aimed at addressing the analogy of two situations must be based on more thorough examination to gather sufficient data to narrow down and locate the possibility of analogy. or else, we have good reason to suspect the validity of the assumption.

Even if the analogy, which is, of course, an untenable assumption, is acceptable. Furthermore, the arguer simply equates "restriction on landscaping and house painting" with "average property values increasing", which is unwarranted. The "correlation" is not "cause". We have no confidence to regard a phenomenon after a set of operations as the result of operating. To find out the exact causes of property value increasing, examination should be applied to all factor that have some bearing on it. Maybe the operation made some difference to the value increasing in some case, but common sense tells us, it is not the only reason. Generally speaking, the values of property ascribe to many factors such as population; the development of economy and also the living qualify of the resident in the area. Without knowing other factors, the arguer makes a begging question, so the mere fact is abortive to support the conclusion.

To sum up, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization and a false analogy, and then the arguer fails to establish the relationship between phenomenon and essence. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to evaluate the two areas are similar in many aspect, with plenty of evidence. To solidify the argument, the arguer must present more fact and compelling evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned. Otherwise, I would suspend my judgment.

[ 本帖最后由 ppmmss 于 2006-10-17 23:01 编辑 ]

sarningUID: 2215285

arg2 0607GMYTH组 第1次作业 PPMMSS

In this argument, the arguer attempts to recommends that it would raise property values in Deerhaven Acres if they begin to restrict on landscaping and house painting as Brookville. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the example of Brookville, where the community adopted a set of restrictions on how the yards should be landscaping and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painting, which presents throughout the argument, however, is insufficient and unreliable. In addition, the assumption underlying the analysis "Deerhaven Acres should follow Brookville" is groundless. In one word, the argument is unconvincing for suffering from several critical flaws.

First of all, the arguer makes a false analogy. The whole analysis is based on the gratuitous presume evidence / reason "Brookvills do....., so we should do......". But the problem is that the two areas are not similar enough to justify the analogy deduction. Before making a comprehensive investigation such as historical factor, the tradition of the residents and all the other fact that would support the hypothesis, any conclusion is premature. Furthermore, the arguer fails to demonstrate that the homeowner and the number of houses and some other living conditions in Deerhaven are the same with in Brookville, which are the determination data for the value of the house. To conclusion, there is no data available evidence to support the presume 动词啊，可用名词吗, so suspicion is reasonable. As we know, any hypothesis aimed at addressing the analogy of two situations must be based on more thorough examination to gather sufficient data to narrow down and locate the possibility of analogy. 好句子，留下 or else, we have good reason to suspect the validity of the assumption.

Even if the analogy, which is, of course, an untenable assumption, is acceptable. Furthermore, the arguer simply equates "restriction on landscaping and house painting" with "average property values increasing", which is unwarranted. The "correlation" is not "cause". We have no confidence to regard a phenomenon after a set of operations as the result of operating. To find out the exact causes of property value increasing, examination should be applied to all factor that have some bearing on it. Maybe the operation made some difference to the value increasing in some case, but common sense tells us, it is not the only reason. Generally speaking, the values of property ascribe to many factors such as population; the development of economy and also the living qualify of the resident in the area. Without knowing other factors, the arguer makes a begging question, so the mere fact is abortive to support the conclusion.

To sum up, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization and a false analogy, and then the arguer fails to establish the relationship between phenomenon and essence. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to evaluate the two areas are similar in many aspect, with plenty of evidence. To solidify the argument, the arguer must present more fact and compelling evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned. Otherwise, I would suspend my judgment.

false analogy 我一直不知道该怎么展开写，呵呵，这篇教了我一些。
应该把一些ARGUER未考虑的可能性写进去，那样感觉驳斥有力。不过感觉你的这篇基本都是打击宏观错误，用词专业，en，赞一个。

expire7UID: 2160574

LZ发帖格式不对，请修改。