argument2 为我所用小组第五次作业

guoshishuoUID: 2467577

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS:447         TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2008-3-28 13:59:45

The author recommends that all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres (DA) should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting just like their neighbor community Brookville (B)does. To support her recommendation, the author provides several evidences. However, close scrutiny to the argument, I find some logical flaws which render it unconvincing.
To begin with, the author has tried to persuade the homeowners in AD to adopt the restrictions as those in B have done. But she offers no evidence to show that the two communities are similar enough to reach the analogical deduction. Perhaps they have differences in the number of residents, the environment and many other factors. Because she fails to provide the evidence that the two communities share the characteristics in those aspects, she cannot conclude that the homeowners in DA should do the same thing as those in B have done.
In addition, the author concludes that the reason why the average property values have tripled in B is because they B community has adopted the restrictions. However, it is entirely possible that the property values rise dramatically due to the reason that B community is near downtown whose geological position is much better than DA and thus causes the rise of property values of the houses in B community. What's more, maybe a famous movie has chosen B as a scene, which brings a traveling boom to B and consequently raises the property values. If either is the case, the author cannot convince me of her recommendation of adopting the restrictions to raise property values because the rise of values in B may be caused by other reasons rather than the restrictions.
What’s more, the author overlooks that the residents in B has adopted the restrictions since seven yeas ago during which many changes may happen. Perhaps people preferred that their yards and the exterior color of their houses were of the same at that time while many people turn to enjoy individuality and like to design their houses by themselves now. If the community requires all of the homeowners to follow the restrictions, some of them may be angry or even move out and also because the taste of people today has changed, perhaps no one would like to purchase this kind of houses, which is against what the author has expected.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing. To better bolster it, the author should provide evidences to show that the reason why the property values of B rise is due to the restrictions. Also, she needs to substantiate that the two communities are of the same in many respects. Moreover, she has to investigate whether people still like these kinds of houses today.