argument2【为我所用小组】第五次作业 By usaya

usayaUID: 2374023

ARGUMENT2--The following appeared in a letter sent by acommittee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in DeerhavenAcres. "Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopteda set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped andwhat colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, averageproperty values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property valuesin Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscapingand housepainting."

In this letter, a committee of homeownersfrom the Deerhaven Acres recommends that homeowners should adopt somerestrictions on landscaping and housepainting to raise property values. Inorder to bolster the recommendation, the committee points out the evidence thatseven years ago homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictionson landscaping and housepainting as well as the fact that the average propertyvalues have tripled there. At first glance, thisletter might be somehow reasonable, however, further consideration reveals thatit rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is thereforeunpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the argument rests on theassumption that Brookville homeowners indeed carried out the restrictions inthe first place, and no statistics of that have been presented.  On the other hand, the committee letter failedto present the crucial evidence that houses that followed the restrictions havesubstantially higher sale price than the ones that don’t.  Without these statistics, the increase of theaverage property values in Brookville can hardlybe attributed to these restrictions. As a result, the committee in DeerhavenAcres cannot draw any firm conclusion that similar restrictions should be adoptedto enhance the Deerhaven Acres average property values.

Even assuming that homeowners in nearby Brookvilleimplemented these restrictions, the committee depends on the additionalassumption that this course of action is the major reason for the increase inBrookville property values. Unfortunately, the committee overlooks some other morepossible factors for the property value increase. For instance, perhaps theimprovement of traffic conditions in Brookville draws people to settle down inBrookville so that the increase in demand boosted the property value. Orperhaps that the growth of the property value in Brookville resulted from the changein micro and macro economic environment, likethe establishment of a business that creates many job positions. Otherpossibilities such as improvement of schools can also promote and increase inproperty values.  Without ruling out theseother possibilities for the rise of property values, the committee cannotconvincingly conclude that the adoption of restrictions for landscaping andpainting will increase property values.

Furthermore, assuming that Brookvilles's property value increase is indeed due tothe implementation of these restrictions, the committee still fails to considerpossible differences between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres that might help tobring about a different result for Deerhaven. The property value of a communityis affected by many different issues including but not restricted toenvironment, school, traffic, culture, economy, history and of courseappearance of the structure.  Without accountingfor these possible differences between the two communities, the committeecannot assume that what resulted in rising property valuesin Brookville would bring aboutsimilar results in Deerhaven.

In conclusion, to convince me thatDeerhaven should adopt the proposed restrictions,the committee must supply clear evidence that the implementation ofBrookville's restrictions, and not some other factors, was responsible for therise in Brookville's property values. The committee must also provide evidencethat other factors affecting home prices in the two areas are otherwise essentially the same.