argument2 第一篇习作，望坦言相告到底是几分的水平，不胜感激

风中尘埃UID: 164965

提纲：1、时间先后关系冒充因果关系
2、平均数不等于全部
3、错误类比

感觉自己语言很贫乏，句式也就是从资料上套的。加油~~~

In this argument, the author concluded that if the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres want to increase their property value, they should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the average property values in Brookville have tripled since they have adopted this set of restrictions seven years ago. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of "after this, therefore, because of this". In this argument, the author provides no direct evidence that the restrictions have made the property more valuable in Brookville. Common sense tells us the rise of real estate maybe the result of the thriving economy, the increasing immigrants, or the developing industry, etc. One of this may be the real reason that caused price rising and may just concurred when the restrictions was adopted. Unless the arguer excludes all these factors, the causal relationship is unconvincing.
Another point worth considering is that in Brookville, what have tripled are the average property values, not all. It is very likely that some of the homeowners suffered a decline of their house prices when others get the benefit from the restrictions. So, even if we admit that restrictions are the main cause of average property appreciation, the arguer's recommendation is still in doubt.
The third and the most important flaw of this argument is the "false analogy" between Brookville and DeerAcre. These two communities may totally different in many aspects, such as the characters of dweller, the circumstances, and the developing strategies and so on. It is possible to assume that Brookville is a community faces basically to white collar workers, while the DeerAcre is the community primarily attracts artists. Under this assumption, we could see how groundless the arguer is to recommend the home owners in DeerAcre to adopt the restrictions which seemed a success in Brookville.
In conclusion, this argument is not as persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the recommendation, the arguer must present more facts which can prove that the restrictions alone would benefit the community. Moreover, the arguer also should offer concrete evidences that Deer Acre will benefit from the restrictions in the same way. Otherwise, the arguer is simply begging the question through out the argument.

kckUID: 2214868

In this argument, the author concluded that if the homeowners in Deerhaven Acres want to increase their property value, they should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the average property values in Brookville have tripled since they have adopted this set of restrictions seven years ago. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
   In the first place, the arguer commits a fallacy of "after this, therefore, because of this". In this argument, the author provides no direct evidence[to show ] that the restrictions have made the property more valuable in Brookville. Common sense tells us the rise of real estate maybe the result of the thriving economy, the increasing immigrants, or the developing industry, etc. One of this may be the real reason that caused price rising [and may just concurred when the restrictions was adopted我觉得这句话可以不要]. Unless the arguer excludes all these factors, the causal relationship is unconvincing.
   Another point worth considering is that in Brookville, what have tripled are the average property values, not all. It is very likely that some of the homeowners suffered a decline of their house prices when others get the benefit from the restrictions. So, even if we admit that restrictions are the main cause of average property appreciation, the arguer's recommendation is still in doubt.[这里是否可以说那么向所有的D居民推荐是最优的，因为并不是每个人都获利益，此外，我感觉这点还是有点牵强]
   The third and the most important flaw of this argument is the "false analogy" between Brookville and DeerAcre. These two communities may[ be] totally different in many aspects, such as the characters of dweller, the circumstances, and the developing strategies and so on. It is possible to assume that Brookville is a community faces basically to white collar workers, while the DeerAcre [is the community] primarily attracts artists. Under this assumption, we could see how groundless the arguer is to recommend the home owners in DeerAcre to adopt the restrictions which seemed a success in Brookville.
   In conclusion, this argument is not as persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the recommendation, the arguer must present more facts which can prove that the restrictions alone would benefit the community. Moreover, the arguer also should offer concrete evidences that Deer Acre will benefit from the restrictions in the same way. Otherwise, the arguer is simply begging the question through out the argument.
[写的不错，风格很象北美上的，但是套的句式也很灵活，加油！]