argument2 victors小组第二次作业

DavidBoyUID: 2140040

题目：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."
字数：407          用时：0:50:30          日期：2007-7-3

The author asserts that the homeowers from the Deerhaven Acres(DA)should do the same thing as those in Brookville(BR) in order to raise property values. However there are several flaws unconvincing the argument.

First, although average property value have tripled in BR, we don't know if the real reason has anything relative to the set of restrictions they adopted. Maybe it is because the value of the land in the whole area is increacing, or maybe there has got a new park there so that more people holding babies like to go there. Both of the possibilities have nothing to do with the restrictions mentioned in the argument.

Second,even if the increasing of the property values is because of the restrictions adopted, it happened seven years ago, the situation now could be much different. Maybe there are lots of people who love the uniform community's yards or thae same color the exteriors of homes painted, while now the current is possibily that eveything should show differently from others.  So the restrictions are maybe not useful at all.

Third, even if the idea of the masses has not changed yet, what is effective for the Brookville community will not definitely have the same result in the DA. The two communities probabily have diverse outlook,population and landscapes.May the restriction is suitable to the BR but not suit the DA.

Fourth,even if the restrictions suit the DA,it doesn't mean the homeowners should take the restrictions. The author claims the homeowners should adopt the restrictions only to increase the property value. However we don't know if the owners in DA is interested in this purpose. If the homeowners are not care about the property value at all, for example, they are very rich or they care the painting color more, the restrictions are meaningless although it takes along higher proverty.

The last but not the least,even if the homeowners in DA want to increase the proverty value,it doesn't mean they must do he same as BR. They have many choices,for example,planting trees to make the community look more beautiful.

As a conclusion,the argument is weak in the aspects talking above. If the author want to make it convincing, he must provide:what cause the increasing of proverty value in BR,what people's idea is now and seven years ago, whether the people's mind about the community is the same in BR and DA and if the homeowners in DA care about the proverty value.