Argument2

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."
(438 words)
In this argument the author comes to the conclusion that Deerhaven Acres should adpot their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. To justify the claim, the author points out that seven years ago, average property values tripled in Brookville community since their homeowners adopted some restrictions on the landscaping of the community's yards and the colors of the exteriors of homes. This claim sound logical, yet close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.First and foremost, the argument unfairly claims that the increase of average property values is the result of the restrictions on yards and exteriors of the house rather than some other phenomenon. The arguer ignores a host of other possible reasons for the increasing values. Perhaps there is a subway station was established in Brookville, therefore it's more convenient for its citizens to go to job in the downtown, or go for a journey on vacation, thus need for houses in this community increased; or perhaps there was an inflation during that time. Without ruling out all other possibles explanations for the growing values, the author can't convine me that the restriction is the only reason for value increasing.Secondly, author's inference rests on the poor assumption that during such a long time as seven years, the effects of such restrictions remain, and as people moved out and moved in, maybe the citizens now in Brookville don't like the standards they set seven years ago any more, and they are trying to change that. It is also entirely possible that the resctrictions are becoming an encumber for value of the house to continue increase, maybe the cost people should take to buy house in Broolville is becoming less and less in the very recently.Finally, the author failed to consider possible differences between Deerhaven and Broolville, which might help to bring about a different result for Brookville. In fact, it is entirely possible that Brookville is near a university, so the teachers there has a solid demands for houses. Without counting for these and other possible dissimilalrities any analogy between the two community is premature.In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to substantiate that the instrictions is the only reason for the growing value, and that even after seven years, this rule can still work. Moreover, I want to know that if there is some key point that can make the difference between Broolville and Deerhaven, if there isn't, then I can believe that it's suitable to set some restrictions for Deerhaven.