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: 505 TIME: 00:55:00 DATE: 2008-10-3 10:00:20
The author of this argument claims that Deerhaven Acres should take the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting just like Brookville did so as to raise the average house prices. To justify this claim the arguer cites a proof that Brookville's property values have risen by putting similar restrictions into practice. This excerpt seems to be convincing and plausible; however, after close scrutiny, I find it contains logical flaws in several critical respects, as the following discussion shows.
First of all, the argument relies on the unwarranted assumption that the price rising of Brookville's houses were attributable to those limitations on landscaping and housepainting. Yet, the only foundation for this causal relation is that there was a correlation between these two phenomena. It is entirely possible that other factors were instead reasons for the increase of real estate prices. It is well known that price is determined the relation of supply and demand. Perhaps Deerhaven suffered from a decline in construction of new houses recently; or perhaps many immigrants have swarmed into Brookville in the recent seven years, and real estate agents raised the prices to earn more profits. Since the argument failed to eliminate these alternative explanations, the arguer's assertion that Brookville's house prices have benefited from constraints on landscaping and housepainting is indefensible.
Secondly, even I concede that the restrictions in Brookville did put a positive effect on the houses' values; another problem with this argument is that analogies between Deerhaven Acres and Brookville are highly suspicious because the author failed to account for possible differences between these two communities. While Brookville's real estate's values raise because of the constraint policies, Deerhaven might not take the advantage of those restrictions. Perhaps Deerhaven's nature environment is not as pleasant as Brookville, so that the simple policies on landscaping and housepainting cannot help to beautify the community. In short, without considering this and other dissimilarities, the arguer cannot convince me that his recommendation for Deerhaven is sound.
Finally, even if these restrictions on house style will also benefit the average property values in Deerhaven, the arguer assumes too hastily that residents of Deerhaven will accept this method, which is, of course unwarranted. Common sense informs me that every single house owner has a trend to keep his or her house unique, which is obviously opposite to the uniform restrictions. Moreover, taking the new policies of housepainting and landscaping will cost a large amount of money, and the arguer did not provide evidence that residents in Deerhaven were ready to pay this bill.
To sum up, the author's conclusion about the constraints on landscaping and housepainting is not well reasoned. To bolster his or her argument, the speaker must prove that these rules are the direct reason for the boost of property values in Brookville. To better support the conclusion, the author is expected to provide more information which can eliminate the possible differences between Deerhaven and Brookville. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should also demonstrate that citizens in Deerhaven will agree with those policies which may bring inconvenience to them.