argument2 51互助小组第3次作业 by ruczephyr

ruczephyrUID: 2181202

TOPIC: ARGUMENT 2 - 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 the argument, on the basis that the newly adopted set restrictions on landscaping and housepainting and the increasing property value ostensively brought by such restriction,the author suggests that to raise property values, Deerhaven Acres should copy Brookville's so-called success. It looks reasonable, however, in-depth reveals several serious logical fallacies which undermines the scrutiny of the argument.

First and foremost, there is no direct evidence to assure that it is the restrictions on landscaping and housedecorating defintely that brings about the increasing property value of Brookville. The amount of increasing property value might result from other factors other than such restrictions. It is entirely possible that Brookville community had properly legsilated several economical policies which most efficiently allocated its resources and further incite its economical potentials to promote the standard of property value. Or the location where Brookville had just fortunately experienced a trend of economical boom, and many companies had chose Brookville as their target of investment. Under such circumstance, the auther unfairly makes  causality between this newly adopted regulations and the tripled average property values.

What is more, even grant the economical success of Brookville was due to such landscaping and housepainting laws, I have enough reasons to question that these laws were not suitable for Deerhaven to copy, for these two town might be totally incompartive. Perhaps, main part of economy income in Brookville was made up by tourism , so Brook community must promote the overall outlook of its town. And such ways of landscaping and housepainting largely increased natrual harmony of the town and then enticed numerous tourists to have the property increased. While on the contrary, quite perhaps, Deerhaver is long known for its industries, which inevitable ensuing with air pollution or forms of other factors. Consequently, Deerhaven community has to confront two problems. In the first place, is there something  can ensure that such house and yards style will defintely bring about profit to Deerhaven? ? In the second, whether houses and yards in Deerhaven will have a longer maintainence of such so-called improved  landscaping and housepainting style is still open to doubt. Without ruling out susption of these two quesions, the argument could not convince to support its conclusion.

Last but not least, without doubting the two points above, as the author mentions the legsilation of landscaping and housepainting came into work seven years ago, it is quite suspicous that such restrictions would not meet the taste and fashion today, and further it could not help promote average property values of Deerhaven. As the author provides little information about changes during this seven years, even accept the compartivitiy of the two towns, I can still doubt that the restrictions suitable for seven years ago can no longer satisfy the people of today for the dramtical changes of public taste of housedecorating. To such extent, simply put, without grounding that public landscaping and housepainting fashion does not alter greatly, the argument is far from convincing .

To sum up, based on these incomperhensive thinking,the argument can not stand persuasive as the author has imagined. To further improve this argument, the author needs to provide more detailed information on causlity between such restriction and increasing property, and time compartivities between seven years ago and today, and location compartivities between Brookville and Deerhaven.

[ 本帖最后由 ruczephyr 于 2007-6-1 20:48 编辑 ]

为了忘记UID: 2317994

In the argument, on the basis that the newly adopted set restrictions on landscaping and housepainting and the increasing property value ostensively brought by such restriction, the author suggests that to raise property values, Deerhaven Acres should copy Brookville's so-called success. It looks reasonable, however, in-depth reveals several serious logical fallacies which undermines the scrutiny of the argument.

First and foremost, there is no direct evidence to assure that it is the restrictions on landscaping and housedecorating defintely that brings about the increasing property value of Brookville. The amount of increasing property value might result from other factors other than such restrictions. It is entirely possible that Brookville community had properly legsilated several economical policies which most efficiently allocated its resources and further incite its economical potentials to promote the standard of property value. Or the location where Brookville had just fortunately experienced a trend of economical boom, and many companies had chose Brookville as their target of investment. Under such circumstance, the auther [author] unfairly makes  causality between this newly adopted regulations and the tripled average property values.

What is more, even grant the economical success of Brookville was due to such landscaping and housepainting laws, I have enough reasons to question that these laws were not suitable for Deerhaven to copy, for these two town [towns] might be totally incompartive. Perhaps, main part of economy income in Brookville was made up by tourism, so Brook community must promote the overall outlook of its town. And such ways of landscaping and housepainting largely increased natrual harmony of the town and then enticed numerous tourists to have the property increased. While on the contrary, quite perhaps, Deerhaver is long known for its industries, which inevitable ensuing with air pollution or forms of other factors.[即使D地区是一个以工业闻名的地区,但是不能否认这种改变可能从促成房价的提高.居住环境的改善肯定能提高房价,不在乎这个地区是以什么为主的.所以论证一下这个变化是否能够有效改善居住环境比较好.] Consequently, Deerhaven community has to confront two problems. In the first place, is there something  can ensure that such house and yards style will defintely bring about profit to Deerhaven? ? In the second, whether houses and yards in Deerhaven will have a longer maintainence of such so-called improved  landscaping and housepainting style is still open to doubt. Without ruling out susption of these two quesions [questions], the argument could not convince to support its conclusion.

Last but not least, without doubting the two points above, as the author mentions the legsilation of landscaping and housepainting came into work seven years ago, it is quite suspicous that such restrictions would not meet the taste and fashion today, and further it could not help promote average property values of Deerhaven. As the author provides little information about changes during this seven years, even accept the compartivitiy of the two towns, I can still doubt that the restrictions suitable for seven years ago can no longer satisfy the people of today for the dramtical changes of public taste of housedecorating. To such extent, simply put, without grounding that public landscaping and housepainting fashion does not alter greatly, the argument is far from convincing .

To sum up, based on these incomperhensive thinking, the argument can not stand persuasive as the author has imagined. To further improve this argument, the author needs to provide more detailed information on causlity between such restriction and increasing property, and time compartivities between seven years ago and today, and location compartivities between Brookville and Deerhaven.