Argument2 weixch第四次

weixchUID: 2104033

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."


他地区地价提高并不一定是因为统一了外观。交通，商业区，社区内部设施提高了

一个例子不足以说明问题，而且七年可发生很多变化，他人经验现在不一定适用

本区特点不一样




In this letter, a committee of Deerhaven Acres homeowners asserts that a set of restrictions about the yards and the color painted should be adopted to raise the property value. To better support this recommendation, the author of the letter takes the case in Brookville as an example and concludes that Deerhaven Acres homeowners should use the restrictions applied in Brookville for reference. Close scrutiny of the evidence author offered reveals that it lends to little credible support to the suggestion.

Firstly, the letter is based on the existence of causality between the property value increase and the restriction forced in Brookville. However, the value increase may be due to the good traffic in the location. And we can not rule out the possibility that it could be the excellent facilities in community that cause the property price increase in Brookville. Moreover, the shopping center, school, hospital and so on can also affect the value of estate. So without more evidence and further deduction, we can not get the same result as the author claims. In other words, the causality is only an assumption.

Secondly, the letter only shows a special case in Brookville, more dubiously, the restriction was carried on seven years ago. It is unknown whether the village still practises the regulation, or whether the regulation still affects the price of estate in Brookville. Without more villages concerned in this letter, we can not rule out the possibility that the average property value raise happens to meet with the practice of the restriction. Or we can say, with just a special case mentioned, the law behind phenomenon can not be judged arbitrarily.

Thirdly, even the restriction contributes to the property value raise in Brookville, we can not assert that the case here in Deerhaven Acres is the same as Brookville. Perhaps the business atmosphere in Brookville is heavy, the restriction about what color to paint and how to landscape the yard would probably help to strengthen the business atmosphere there and raise the estate value. If most of the buildings in Deerhaven Acres are in uptown, the restriction would introduce a dull atmosphere in community and could decrease the average property value in Deerhaven Acres.

In sum, the argument of the committee is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the viewpoint, the author should prove the causality between the estate value raise and the restriction applied in Brookville, and show more cases happened recently which can support his opinion. To better support the conclusion drawn in this letter, the author should make sure that the specialty of the two villages is almost the same, which lead the restriction practice to increase of average property value.