Argument2: The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres(D.A) to all homeowners in D.A.

"seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville(B) 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 B. In order to raise property values in D.A, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting."

   In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to raise property values, D.A's homeowners should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting. In support this recommendation, the arguer cites a example about B, in where the homeowners adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be and what colors the exeriors of homes should be painted seven years ago, and then, property values have tripled in there. However, this argument is problematic for several critical flaws.

   First, the arguer assumes that the restrictions on landscaping and housepainting is the only reason for the significant increasing of property values in B in last several years. This assumption is obviously unconvincing. The arguer ignores many other possibilities: perhaps people suddenly discovered the potential of reality in B, or the environment in B was getting better for people living, and so forth. Unless the arguer provide evidence to rule out other possible causes ,the  assumption is entirely unwarranted.

   Secondly, even if the restrictions is the only cause of the growing of property values, the argue also cannot assume that the situation in D.A is the same as it in B. Yet, the letter contains on evidence to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence  it is equally possible that people in A.D ,in fact, do not care about what color of the house should be painted and what kind of plant are there in the yard. Actually, they may more concern about the practicability of houses.

   In addition, the example about B which the arguer cites comes from seven years ago .As we all know, everything may change especially in such a long time. Perhaps such restrictions on landscaping and housepainting now, already,  not have attraction ,or maybe people is not interest in  real estate no matter what restrictions you would adopt.

   To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to provide evidence to rule out other possible causes of growing property values in B. Additonally, the arguer must demonstrate the method which was used in B seven years age is absolutely useful in today's D.A.