[i习作temp] argument2 v6 8.19 [复制链接]

hustzwj
UID: 203387

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 9
寄托币: 2157
注册时间: 2005-3-30
精华: 0
帖子: 25

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-19 23:41:06 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

2The 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 house-painting."

With the assumption that average property values have tripled in Brookville after a set of restrictions were adopted by homeowners in nearby Brookville community, the author concludes that Deerhaven Acres should also adopt set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. However, this argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions.

Firstly, the author takes for granted that restrictions in Brookville were implemented. The letter does not substantiate this crucial assumption. If they were not implemented actually, then any changes in property values of Brookville could not be attributed to them.

Even assuming that the people in Brookville indeed implemented these restrictions, the author provides no information about whether there are other factors that may cause the increased property value in Brookville. Perhaps the economy in Brookville expanded in that period and many businessmen came here, resulting in the increasing of property value. Or perhaps the supply of housing has decreased. Either scenario would provide an alternative explanation for the increase of property values, which weakens the author's conclusion.

Even assuming property value in Brookville did increase because of implementation of restrictions, the mere fact that Deerhaven is near Brookville community is scant evidence that Deerhaven would achieve the same goal by following Brookville's example. It is entirely possible that the transportation to Deerhaven is much less convenient than that of Brookville. Or perhaps demand of housing in Brookville is more than Deerhaven originally because of flourishing economy. In such cases, property value in Deerhaven may stay still even if it takes the same measure. Without accounting for possible dissimilarities, the author could not assume that property values in Brookville would bring about the same result in Deerhaven.

In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen his/her conclusion, the author should supply clear evidence that no other factors were responsible for the increase of property values in Brookville. The author must also provide evidences that other factors affecting home prices in the two areas are essentially the same.