Argument 2 【0710G-小猪快跑小组】第6次作业 by guangxu

guangxu3559UID: 2311047

Argument 2:
Words: 360    Time: 35 minutes
In this argument, the arguer recommends that Deerhaven Acres should adapt the restrictions on landscaping and housing to improve the property values. To support this recommendation, the arguer cites the circumstance of homeowners in nearby Brookville community who gained tripled property values after implemented that methods. However, the arguer made a simple analogy and the conclusion is not as persuasive as it stands.

First of all, the arguer made a false causal relationship between the tripled property values and the efforts. No more concrete proof is given to show that the achievement is obtained by implementing a set of restrictions on how the community's yard should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Maybe other effective methods are also adapted and these are the true sources that cause the rising values. So the arguer need provides more persuasive proof to attribute the achievement to those restrictions.

What is more, the arguer simply uses a past experience to conclude for the future, which is problematic. From the argument we know Brookvile got the rising property value seven years ago. However, seven years is a long time during which many changes can change, including the living habit of people, the value of beauty and the consuming style. So seven years' result can not guarantee the effect of those measures now.

Last but not least, the arguer makes a false analogy. Since Brookville community received obvious result after adapting the restrictions, there is no sure the measure can also be effective in Deerhaven Acres. These are two different places, which cause the difference in the choice between them. Maybe the residents in Brookville like the same arrangement of the community's yards and colors of homes, nevertheless, residents in Deerhaven Acres concentrate to individuals more and prefer unique design. Certainly they oppose those restrictions.

In sum, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen the persuasive effect, the arguer must supply enough proof to show the achievement of Brookville community is truly the result of those restrictions. Also, evidence ought to be supported to show the conditions between the two districts are similar after deep survey.

Argument 51
Syllabus:
1. The conclusion based on the comparison between two groups is problematic. Different professional level between the two doctors may affect the conclusion. Different serious extent of the patients in two groups can not guarantee the conclusion either.
2. There is no powerful to prove that the good result of the first group patients should attribute to antibiotics. Other possible factors that bring the result are not excluded.
3. The arguer makes a hasty conclusion. Even antibiotics has effect to treat muscle strain, there is no need to require all patients with muscle strain to take this medicine. Maybe this medicine has side effect to some patients.

Argument 38
Syllabus:
1. The arguer makes a simple assumption that eating fish is effective to prevent colds. No useful proof shows this. Maybe the residents in East Media are fond of fish, meanwhile they prefer to do exercises and take some useful medicine or nutrition which is useful to prevent colds.
2. The arguer oversimplifies the conclusion that the residents in East Media get colds less only by judging the times that they visit the doctors. They may eat some effective medicine at home.
3. The arguer makes a hasty recommendation that Ichthaid derived from fish oil should to be used to prevent colds. Even, eating fish has effect to prevent colds, we can not sure that it is Ichthaid's contribution. Maybe it is other substances in fish that affect truly.