我朋友的第一篇agu，帮她发上来，大虾快来啊
和我一样，是第一篇，写的agu2，多多指教俺俩啊。不胜感谢！！！
In
the argument,the arguer concludes that they should adopt their set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the Brookville community adopted a set of restriction on the landscaping and housepainting and average property values have raised up three times.This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
The major problem with the argument is the unwarranted assumption that it’s because of Brookville’s restriction that its property values raise.Perhaps the raising is a result of other means taken by Brookville.For example good service for the people living there,good condition there and the advertisement’s work and so forth.Or perhaps the life level of the people is higher than before and the price of all the things are higher than ever before,so though Brookville’s average property values raise up,maybe other police’s values is up too.In short without running out other possible reasons for the higher property values the arguer cannot convince me on the basis of them that Brookville’values up is because of its restriction.
Another problem that undermins the argument is that though Brookville’s average property values is raising up due to the restriction on landscaping and housecaping,we also cannot imagine that Deerhaven Acres’ values could raise up too through the same means.Because each place has its own case.Perhaps the landscaping and housepainting of the Deerhaven Acres is good enough,and it has no room to improve.And the true false of Deerhaven is on its advertisements and location.Without more information that compares Brookville’s circumstance with Deershaven’s,the arguer cannot convince me.
Last but not least, the aurguer fails to take into account several other factors that might weaken the reasoning in this arguemnent.The values of Brookville raise up three times comparing with seven years ago.Seven years is a long time.We don not know the raising happened at which time during the seven years.Perhaps the raising happened in the first few years and in these years the means of restriction can not help.Thus it is really possible that the means would not work now,maybe the buyers hated the restriction now,because it is too old mind.
To sum up,the conclusion lacks crebility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.To strongthen the argument,the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning comparation between Deerhaven and Brookville.To better evaluate the argument ,we would need more information regarding what other means does Brookville takes and the raising happened at which year.
