Argument2 [勇往直前小组]第四次作业nbta03

nbta03UID：2326371

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."

七年前，附近的Brookville社区的业主实施了一系列关于该社区的庭院应如何布置以及房屋应涂何种颜色的规定。从那以后，Brookville的地产平均价格翻了三番。为使Deerhaven Acres的地产升值，我们也应该对于景观和房屋涂色实施自己的规定。

In the argument, the author advocates that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values based on Brookville's successful instance on the property values. The argument seems to be appealing at first glance, but after a careful examination, we'll find that it suffers from several logical fallacies.

First, the  statistics information given in the argument is too vague. The arguer points out the average
property values have tripled in Brookville since the plan. But we do not know the exact number of the
property values. If the former  property values stand a rather level, then the three times of that maybe
seems not to be a high level. Besides the arguer does not provide how these information is collected,
whether it reveal the whole factor in Brookville, and even that there is other factors cause the increase
rather than landscaping and housepainting. We need more detailed information about the property
values in Brookville to be convinced.

Second, the author makes the assumption that the property values in Deerhaven Acres (DA) will also
increase if they copy Brookville’s example. There is nothing provided to support it. The plan adopt
seven years ago does not mean it works now. Even it still acts effectively in Brookville, It possibly
achieves less success in DA. Maybe the situation of two places is totally different that we may not make a comparison between them. Unless justifying that everything is the same in two places, the copy of
Brookville's example is meaningless.

Finally, the author makes a hasty generalization. Even if the Brookville's set of restriction is adopted in DA, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow the increase fo property values
in DA. Many factors rules the property values, such as economic atmosphere, quality of living, living
environment, rather than the landscaping and colors of home. But the author provides no information
about that. The author should also take these factors into account, otherwise the conclusion will not be
convincing.

In sum, the argument lack credibility since the given evidence do not lend strong support to what the
author claims. To  strengthen the conclusion ,the author should provide more information about the
factors in Brookville and DA. Also, the author must rule out all other possibilities that affect the
property values increase to make the conclusion logically acceptable.