argument2 kito小组作业贴

bunnymz2005UID：2146758

ARGUMENT 2
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."
Outline：
1.the author fails to rule out the influence of inflation
2. mistakenly establishes a causal relationship between the restrictions adopted by Brookville and the tripled average property values
3. it does not take into account the inherent difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres
正文：
The letter sent to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres recommends that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To bolster it the author cited the example that homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting which causes average property values tripled in Brookville. The argument seems to be logical at the first glance; however, if we take a cautious inspection on it, several flaws will be exposed conspicuously.

First of all, as it mentioned in this argument, average property values in Brookville have tripled. However, the author fails to rule out the influence of inflation, which makes the statistic presumably invalid. It is entirely possible that the price in the market has increased four times due to inflation during the seven years. If so, the experience tells us that average property values, which actually only tripled now, is intended to be four times higher than before. For that matter, we have good reason to believe that the real average property values declined rather than increase as the author reasons. Since the author fails to respond to this concern, the claim that average property values have tripled in Brookville is dubious at best.

In addition, even assuming that the price in the market keeps constant from seven years ago till now, the author still mistakenly establishes a causal relationship between the restrictions adopted by Brookville and the tripled average property values. The author neglects other alternatives which may embrace the investment to Brookville, the government policies, the enhancement of general welfare and the like. Also, the assumption that it is landscaping and housepainting that primarily lead to prosperity is ridiculous. If it is right, the government can stimulate the increase of economy by just painting the house. That's absolutely not the case.

Finally, the argument above is also weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres. There is a good chance that the residents in Deerhaven Acres dislike the house in the same pattern or that the investment and even the economy is not prosperous in Deerhaven Acres, both of which are disadvantageous for the increase of average property values. Again, what the author also fails to consider is time when the average values tripled in Brookville. It is seven years ago. As we know, in most circumstance the previous truth will turn out to be fault in modern times. From this point of view, the recommendation that Deerhaven Acres should also adopt the same restriction as Brookville adopted seven years ago is certainly not a wise one.

To sum up, the argument is fundamentally weakened by the flaws discussed above. Before conclusions about the restrictions of landscaping and housepainting are reached, clearer information on the market situation and the other possibilities which may also lead to the increase of property values in Brookville should be given. Moreover, the author should also justify that Brookville and Deerhaven Acres are similar enough; otherwise, the argument will be logically unfounded.

gaojiehahaUID：2149729

Outline：
1.the author fails to rule out the influence of inflation（inflation是一种可能性，你在文中只能假设这种情况。但你这句话，让人感觉七年前一定有inflation似的。可以改为：arguer没考虑到其它的可能性，比如通货膨胀。供你参考）
2. mistakenly establishes a causal relationship between the restrictions adopted by Brookville and the tripled average property values
3. it does not take into account the inherent difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres
正文：
The letter sent to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres recommends that Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To bolster it the author cited the example that homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting which causes average property values tripled in Brookville. The argument seems to be logical at the first glance; however, if we take a cautious inspection on it, several flaws will be exposed conspicuously.（开头挺好！:)）

First of all, as it mentioned in this argument, average property values in Brookville have tripled. However, the author fails to rule out the influence of inflation, which makes the statistic presumably invalid. It is entirely possible that the price in the market has increased four times due to inflation during the seven years. If so, the experience tells us that average property values, which actually only tripled now, is intended to be four times higher than before. For that matter, we have good reason to believe that the real average property values declined rather than increase as the author reasons. Since the author fails to respond to this concern, the claim that average property values have tripled in Brookville is dubious at best（？）.

In addition, even assuming that the price in the market keeps constant from seven years ago till now, the author still mistakenly establishes a causal relationship between the restrictions adopted by Brookville and the tripled average property values. The author neglects other alternatives which may embrace the investment to Brookville, the government policies, the enhancement of general welfare and the like. Also, the assumption that it is landscaping and housepainting that primarily lead to prosperity is ridiculous. If it is right, the government can stimulate the increase of economy by just painting the house. That's absolutely not the case.

Finally, the argument above is also weakened by the fact that it does not take into account the inherent difference between Brookville and Deerhaven Acres. There is a good chance that the residents in Deerhaven Acres dislike the house in the same pattern or that the investment and even the economy is not prosperous in Deerhaven Acres, both of which are disadvantageous for the increase of average property values. Again, what the author also fails to consider is time when the average values tripled in Brookville. It is seven years ago. As we know, in most circumstance the previous truth will turn out to be fault in modern times. From this point of view, the recommendation that Deerhaven Acres should also adopt the same restriction as Brookville adopted seven years ago is certainly not a wise one.（B2,B3论证的不错！）

To sum up, the argument is fundamentally weakened by the flaws discussed above. Before conclusions about the restrictions of landscaping and housepainting are reached, clearer information on the market situation and the other possibilities which may also lead to the increase of property values in Brookville should be given. Moreover, the author should also justify that Brookville and Deerhaven Acres are similar enough; otherwise, the argument will be logically unfounded.

小花：
这篇论证的不错啊！
每个点都驳斥到了,说理也挺充分。
没有什么要大改的地方
把B1中inflation的语言再组织组织就更完美了
继续加油啊:p

[ Last edited by gaojiehaha on 2005-12-24 at 15:26 ]