argument2 [0710G 戴三个表冲刺小组] 第三次作业

斯普特尼克UID: 2171287

TOPIC: ARGUMENT2 - The following appeared in a letter sent by acommittee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in DeerhavenAcres.

"Sevenyears ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set ofrestrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colorsthe exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property valueshave tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in DeerhavenAcres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping andhousepainting."
WORDS: 387          TIME: 0:27:36          DATE: 2007-7-28

In thisargument the author draw a conclusion that the Deerhaven Acres governmentwill benefitis the homeowner set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting which ismerely based on the dubious evidence and unfound assumption. The author claimthat seven years ago the Brookville benefit fromrestrictions on landscaping and housepainting tosupport his conclusion. At first glance, this argument seems to be some what reasonable,however, that would be have addressed in the statement. A careful examinationof this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusionis.

In the firstplace, this argument based on the assumption that unifying thelandscape and the colour of the houses will surely benefit, because theBrookville's property values have tripled seven years ago. In this point, theauthor fails to realize that may be some other things made the property ofBrookville tripled, what about the flourished business, or convenienttransportation, or may be an establishment such as a supermarketmade the property increased? Without put theseaspects into account, the author's claim is fully suspect.

In the secondplace, another fundamental problem which serious weakensthe logic of this argument is that there no any evidence shows that we couldbenefit if we mimic the same rule of Brookville. The restrictions on theseaspects will not only decrease the interest of thepotential customs to move in, but also destroy the former characteristicview of the town. Granted most of the customs and the residents there willaccept this forceful decision, we will not guarantee thatthey will "satisfy" with this. Lacking the evidence that thepotential customs will accept the new restrictions or they will not care aboutthis at all, the author's conclusion s cannot be justified.

To sum up, theargument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we acceptthe conclusion, the argument must provide more evidences that customs in futurewill accept these restrictions and the poverty values willincreased for it . To solidity the argument, the arguer woule have to providemore evidence concerning the major point behind thefact which increased the property values of Brookville, and make a survey tothe customs in order to collect their will for these restrictions.For that, at least we have to guarantee that no one will move outfor this behavior.

自己改了一遍，不知道为何复制过来下面都有个横杠，也取消不掉，怪了