argument2[为我所用第5次作业]

flair1031UID: 2314987

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."



The argument draws the conclusion that the homeowners of Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restriction on the both landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values in the location. To support its recommendation, the author analyzes the fact that average property values in Brookville community have tripled after the raise of their counterpart restriction. The recommendation seems reasonable at the first glance. I suggest, however, those people agree with the committee should pay more attention and think over several falsies in the argument.

To begin with, the mere information about the restrictions of the homeowners in nearby Brookville community carries out hardly effectively support the arguer's assumption. There should be more details and back ground of the attitudes and movement before and after rise of restriction of Brookville community in seven years ago. How had the homeowners painted their homes and did they re-paint or refuse to follow the restriction with reasons like lack of money, diploma in custom and restrictions, and est.? How had they settle their stuff in the yards and did they change the method of locate them or escape from responsibility? Information in these dimensions dramatically valuable reflect the effectively of those restrictions..

Then the arguer makes an assumption that the tripled property is due to the restrictions in Brookville. Indeed, it's simple to find out that this observed phenomenon, actually, says little more than that these toe event occur one after the other. The arguer does not warrant the assumption by strong enough evidence. Contingencies, for instance, house market changes, materials and labor of building costs, legislative moves, trend of national population, and average revenue of the citizens, can all affect the upswing of property. Unless the author takes the account for these in, not reasonable is the conclusion.

What's more, the author come to a false assumption that the situation of Deerhaven Acres is similar with that in Brookville, while the particular events happened in the nearby community seven years ago, actually, can't represent the other regions. The interior differences between the Brookville and Deerhaven Acres, for example, weather, costumes and tradition, average revenue, and plan of the municipality, upon which the assumption relies, inevitable cripple the conclusion of the argument.

To sum up, the assumption of the arguer is unwarranted, oversimplified, and too vague to convince the readers. In order to solidly ground the conclusion, arguer needs to provide concrete evidence about the direct affection of the restrictions to the property rise, and the wary comparison of the particularity of the Deerhaven Acres.