argument2 4月作文小组4月9日第十六次作业 by寂寞樱花

寂寞樱花UID??2306511

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."
WORDS: 322          TIME: 00:26:45          DATE: 2007-4-10

In this argument, the author reaches the conclusion that Deerhaven Acres (DA) should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting as Brookville(B) in order to raise the property values for the average property values having tripled in B after that. I find this argument is logically unconvincing in several respects.

First of all, the author has committed a fallacy that called “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc” The only connection between adopting a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepaiting and the raising of property values in B is that the latter came out later than the front. And we could find no causal in the two forms this argument. It is very possible that the raising of property values in B is caused by the other reasons such as better management or faster development of economy there rather than adopting their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. So the author's failure on investigates or even considers these possibilities makes the conclusion unconvincing.

Secondly, the argument has no information about the difference between DA and B. Even if the raising of property values in B is caused by adopting the set of restrictions on lanscaping and housepainting, the difference in geography, environment, and economy etc. between the two cities may made the same method as B to cause a different result in DA. For example, maybe B is a traveling city and DA may be a industrial city. The conclusion would be suspected unless the author can prove that DA is the same as B in every aspect.

To sum up, there may be other better methods to be used that could make the property values in DA to raise, and it may not necessary to follow after B. Or to make the conclusion more persuasive, the author should do more surveys and researches about DA and provide more evidence to assure the practicability of the method cited in the argument.

CLVolkovUID??2305902

这次的文章对我的论述技巧有很大启发，在此表示感谢！