argument2[加州阳光]第一次作业请排砖

lixiaomin046400UID: 2207959

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." 频率60

正文（486）

In this argument, the arguer provides the evidence that in the seven years since homeowner in Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on their home's exterior appearance property values there have tripled. Therefore, the arguer believes that an analogy can be drawn with nearby Deerhaven Acres: the homeowner there can follow similar restrictions to enhance their property values. While this argument has some merits, several critical flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

First of all, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between property values and restrictions on home's exterior appearance. There is no evidence to suggest that the enhancement of property values due to Brookville’s restrictions. The letter doesn't give any substantiation that if these restrictions were not implemented, there would be no distinct changes in Brookville's property values. Therefore it is too festinate to claim Deerhaven to adopt analogical restrictions.

Secondly, providing that restrictions can affect the property values, it cannot prove these restrictions are crucial factor. It is entirely possible that one or more other factors were instead accountable for the increase. We all share the belief that property values are a function of supply and demand, if demand exceeded supply the property values would enhance, whereas supply exceeded demand the property values would decrease. But the ingredients which effect demand and supply are various. The arguer doesn't analyze all the factors that may effect property values and at the same time shows us if one factor changed (other factors were invariable) property values would increase or decrease. Thus the arguer's recommendation is inconsequential.

In addition, assuming that Brookville's rising property values are indeed attribute to the implementation of these restriction, nobody can assure that there will be unchangeable in this area after seven years. Perhaps the demand for housing falls short of supply, or the traffic becomes convenient, or this area turns to an emporium. It cannot blindly apply to Deerhaven Acres.

Finally, Although Deerhaven is adjacent to Brookville, the arguer fail to point out the possible differences between Deerhaven and Brookville that might bring about opposite result for Deerhaven. For example, the location of Brookville is relative better than Deerhaven's, and what is more, some Deerhaven homebuyers would like to design their own home's exterior appearance, they don't like uniform appearance. If the homeowner implemented the restrictions on his own will, the homebuyers might move away. Accordingly, it is presumptuous to judge that what resulted in rising property values in Brookville would bring about the same result in Deerhaven.

In summary, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the letter does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should have to provide more evidence that the rise in Brookville's property values results from the implementation of Brookville's restrictions. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer should also provide concrete evidence that the example of Brookville can apply to Deerhaven effectively.

感觉写的不好，请指正啊！

lastpearlUID: 2119955

In this argument, the arguer provides the evidence that in the seven years（seven years ago） since homeowner (homeowners) in Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on their home's (homes’) exterior appearance property values there have tripled. Therefore, the arguer believes that an analogy can be drawn with nearby Deerhaven Acres: the homeowner (homeowners) there can follow similar restrictions to enhance their property values. While this argument has some merits, several critical flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

First of all, the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between property values and restrictions on home's exterior appearance. There is no evidence to  
suggest that theenhancement of property values due to Brookville’s restrictions. The letter doesn't give any substantiation that if these restrictions were not implemented, there would be no distinct changes in Brookville's property values. Therefore it is too festinate to claim Deerhaven to adopt analogical restrictions.

Secondly, providing that restrictions can affect the property values, it cannot prove these restrictions are crucial factor. It is entirely possible that one or more other factors were instead accountable for the increase. We all share the belief that property values are a function of supply and demand, if demand exceeded supply the property values would enhance, whereas supply exceeded demand the property values would decrease. But the ingredients which effect (affect) demand and supply are various. The arguer doesn't analyze all the factors that may effect (affect) property values and at the same time (doesn’t) shows us if one factor changed (other factors were invariable) property values would increase or decrease. Thus the arguer's recommendation is inconsequential.

In addition, assuming that Brookville's rising property values are indeed attribute to the implementation of these restriction, nobody can assure that there will be unchangeable in this area after seven years. Perhaps the demand for housing falls short (fall 和 short 意思重复) of supply, or the traffic becomes convenient, or this area turns to an emporium. It (So the restrictions) cannot blindly apply to Deerhaven Acres.

Finally, Although Deerhaven is adjacent to Brookville, the arguer fail to point out the possible differences between Deerhaven and Brookville that might bring about opposite result for Deerhaven. For example, the location of Brookville is relative better than Deerhaven's, and what is more, some Deerhaven homebuyers would like to design their own home's exterior appearance, they don't like uniform appearance. If the homeowner implemented the restrictions on his own will (will改为terms), the homebuyers might move away. Accordingly, it is presumptuous to judge that what resulted in rising property values in Brookville would bring about the same result in Deerhaven.

In summary, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the letter does not lend strong support （supports）to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should have to (去掉have to) provide more evidence that the rise in Brookville's property values results from the implementation of Brookville's restrictions. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer should also provide concrete evidence that the example of Brookville can apply to Deerhaven effectively.

驳斥论点的时候我觉得顺序最好是1.restrictions 不一定能够implimented
2.即使restrictions得以实现，values的升高也可能是由于其它的原因造成的
3．7年以前……4.错误类比


我也是个新手，有些意见可能并不合适，请指正