praveen17
07-11-2010, 12:59 PM
"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 house painting."
The given argument brings out the fact that ,Brookville community property have been raised his property value due to the restricrion in landscape and colouring of exteriors of houses. So,In order to increase the value of deerhaven,restriction should be adopted for landscape and coluring the exterior of houses.The argument is flawed by the following reason.
First, The author says the property value is raised due to restriction in landscape and colouring .But it is not worth convincing,because the value of property can be raised by some other reasons also.The restriction could not be the main reason for the increase in the value of property.
Secondly,The author didn’t tell about the current value of Brookville and Deerhaven property.The value of property might be based on basic ameneties like Transport,Shops,Industries available nearby.So the value of Brookville can be raised based on basic ameneties obtained during seven years. Moreover in the period of seven years property value of Brookville had raised but author fails to tell about increase in value of Deerhaven property.
The restriction in the landscape and colouring may contribute to increase in the value of property,But we cannot say it is the main reason for increase in value.The author fails to say about the development in seven years of both Brookville and Deerhaven property.
We cannot assure that by adopting the restriction in Deerhaven,the property value can be raised.Moreover the author fails to compare about the sources available near to Brookville and Deerhaven.So if more details were available about sources and prices it will be worth for conclusion.
The given argument brings out the fact that ,Brookville community property have been raised his property value due to the restricrion in landscape and colouring of exteriors of houses. So,In order to increase the value of deerhaven,restriction should be adopted for landscape and coluring the exterior of houses.The argument is flawed by the following reason.
First, The author says the property value is raised due to restriction in landscape and colouring .But it is not worth convincing,because the value of property can be raised by some other reasons also.The restriction could not be the main reason for the increase in the value of property.
Secondly,The author didn’t tell about the current value of Brookville and Deerhaven property.The value of property might be based on basic ameneties like Transport,Shops,Industries available nearby.So the value of Brookville can be raised based on basic ameneties obtained during seven years. Moreover in the period of seven years property value of Brookville had raised but author fails to tell about increase in value of Deerhaven property.
The restriction in the landscape and colouring may contribute to increase in the value of property,But we cannot say it is the main reason for increase in value.The author fails to say about the development in seven years of both Brookville and Deerhaven property.
We cannot assure that by adopting the restriction in Deerhaven,the property value can be raised.Moreover the author fails to compare about the sources available near to Brookville and Deerhaven.So if more details were available about sources and prices it will be worth for conclusion.