ARGUMENT2

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: 427 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008/8/4 19:53:44

In this argument, the arguer draws a conclusion that people in Deerhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting as Brookville, which is merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious evidences. At first glance, the argument seems somewhat convincing, but further meditation reveals that it omits some essential concerns that should be dressed to support the argument. In my point of view, the argument suffers from 3 logical flaws.

To begin with, the argument alleges that the restrictions, adopted seven years ago, in Brookville is responsible for the increase of the average property values, merely based on the fact that the increase occurred after adopting these restrictions. However, the sequence of the two events is not sufficient for indicating that the earlier event caused the later one. It is entirely possible that the development of transportation near these community's yards, or the increasing of the population are the main reason of the increase of the average property values.

Furthermore, although the increase of values was caused by the restrictions, it was seven years ago. The arguer assumes that the tendency would remain the same at different time unconditionally. The assumption is unwarranted, because things rarely remain the original status over a long period of time. Perhaps, the people, even in Brookville, are not interested in the colors should the yards should be painted or how they should be landscaped. It is possible that the size or the internal structures are the significant factors which were concerned by the people nowadays.

Moreover, although modern people are concerned with these factors discussed above, there is a more serious logical flaw. The argument statement-people in Deerhaven Acres should do what Brookville have done-is based on what might be a poor analogy between the two hometowns, which depends on the assumption that all the situations in both of the two towns are the same. It is possible that the people in Deerhaven Acres are more interested in price and size rather than landscaping and housepainting. Without accounting for differences between the people in the two hometowns, the argument cannot prove the proposed methods will make use in Deerhaven Acres.

In a word, the arguer fails to support its proposal that people in Dearhaven Acres should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. In addition, the arguer would have to provide more information in order to make the argument more convincing. Therefore, if the argument had considered the given factors and possibilities discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptance.