johnlock

"It is primarily through formal education that a culture tries to perpetuate the ideas it favors and discredit the ideas it fears." Education is one of the devices with which a society perpetuate aspects of culture that are held essential to its survival. The intensity and range of cultural indoctrination varies with the principals and goals of different rungs in the hierarchy of education. In addition, there are a number of other means other than education to serve the same ends. In grade schools there is much justifiable instillation of certain principals or rules indeed. For one thing, it is commonly acknowledged that graders have yet achieved the level of critical thinking essential to develop sound judgment of ideas. Due to lack of empirical knowledge to give raw tests to the messages conveyed to their supple minds, they are susceptible to unwholesome, harmful propaganda and bandwagon. Their inexperience often mislead into buying whatever thoughts available to sate their eager for the new. So it is natural and important for adults, chiefly teachers, to filter the ideas for them, to preach those favorable to their wholesome growth and warn them against those generally regarded as improper or indecent. Besides, it is a consent among educators that children are more ready to rote learning than to analytical comprehension. So indoctrination is idealistic in channeling certain ideas of mores and ethos importance to young children. However, the intensity and range of this kind of instillation should not be overstated or else the harmony between teachers and children will be spoiled and the efficacy of elementary education will be at stake. Graders are to be indoctrinated, and imaginatively. The case for grade schools is not applicable to universities and graduate schools. The principal goal of higher education consists in development of critical thinking, of examining thoughts and ideas with sound reasoning and solid facts. It would be a decisive failure if the students of a college preferred ready acceptation to skepticism or were unable to ask insightful and incisive questions about the materials presented to them. In fact the truth is that college goers often resent indoctrination or preachment, taking it as a kind of infringement on their cherished independency of thinking. So the best way to advocate ideas favored by society is to serve it with supporting facts and have confidence in the analytical ability of young scholars. Genuine gold glitters, and a sound mind cannot miss it. Besides education, a host of devices serve the same ends such as the media and the legislation. The media, known as the fourth estate, hold considerable sway in whether to give life to an opinion or to dump it in the landfill. Political leaders are familiar with the power of media and they hardly forget TV or newspapers in selling their perspectives on issues. Business spares no efforts to be left behind. Our deal with them about ideas, whether it is about a candidate to government or a product, constitutes a large portion of the culture. When it comes to legislation, there is no room for bargain. With the law, the highest form of duty, our legislators make it clear what is pernicious and punishable in every day business. As means of administration, laws enjoy great advantage in preaching the values of society because every cell of the bureaucracy is watching its enforcement. Education has served thousands of years to preach good ideas and discredit useless or harmful ones, but it is, and should not be, the only way to do so. Experience without education is better than education without experience.

The following appeared in the business section of a newspaper. "Given that the number of people in our country with some form of arthritis is expected to rise from 40 million to 60 million over the next twenty years, pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs for the treatment of arthritis should be very profitable. Many analysts believe that in ten years Becton Pharmaceuticals, which makes Xenon, the best-selling drug treatment for arthritis, will be the most profitable pharmaceutical company. But the patent on Xenon expires in three years, and other companies will then be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug. Thus, it is more likely that in ten years the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals, maker of a new drug called Xylan, which clinical studies show is preferred over Xenon by seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis." The author concludes that Perkins Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of a new drug Xylan for arthritis, is most likely to be ten years from now the most profitable pharmaceutical company. In support of the conclusion, the author infers from the estimated increase of patients with arthritis in the next twenty years that pharmaceutical companies producing drugs for treating arthritis will be profitable. Furthermore, it is mentioned that Becton Pharmaceuticals, maker of the best-selling arthritis killer Xenon, will have its patent on this drug expired in three years, which will enable other companies to produce a cheaper version of the drug. At last, the author points out that Xylan is preferred over Xenon by seven tenths of patients suffering from extreme arthritis, as is indicated by clinical studies. The argument is not convincing for several aspects of questionable reasoning. First, the author fails to convince us that only companies producing drugs for treatment of arthritis will be very profitable. Pharmaceutical companies producing other drugs for diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and apoplexies may be even more profitable. Besides, how much credit is in the expected rise of population with arthritis over the next twenty years remains unsaid. Even if it becomes reality, it does not guarantee a plum profit for pharmaceutical companies because there may be new and better remedies, say, Chinese medicine. In short, it is ungrounded to claim that candidates to be the most profitable pharmaceutical company are only producers of arthritis drugs. Second, it is dubious that Perkins will be crowned even if arthritis drugs bring the biggest chance to profit. Becton, holder of the patent on best-selling Xenon, may make much more money than Perkins before its patent expires by either expanding production of Xenon or simply sell or franchise the patent at a gorgeous price. Furthermore, the argument does not rule out the possibility that Becton may come up with a new drug for arthritis superior to Xylan or shift to drugs for other diseases which may be more profitable than any of the arthritis drugs currently available. Another weakness in the author’s reasoning is that lower price of other companies’ arthritis drugs does nor necessarily follow from the expiration of Becton’s patent on Xenon. There are many factors governing product prices, such as average salary level, benefits of the labor, reinvestment in new technology and so on. At last, the preference of Xylan over Xenon by seven out of ten patients with extreme arthritis lends no strong support to Perkins’ supremacy. Anyhow, people suffering from moderate or minor arthritis preponderate over the few in extremity. In fact, it might backfire at the author’s stand because it seems that Xylan suits only those seriously ill with arthritis. In sum, more evidence concerning profitability of pharmaceutical companies should be presented to corroborate the author’s conclusion.

"The concept of 'individual responsibility' is a necessary fiction. Although societies must hold individuals accountable for their own actions, people's behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making. The concept ‘individual responsibility’ refers to the fact that individuals are held accountable for the consequences of their own actions by the society. It follows from this definition that people’s behavior is determined by both their discretion and forces not of their own making because the course of human action is conditioned by both. Individual responsibility is an indispensable element of democracy. Democratic society in its own right demands that each member be judged by his/her own actions and receive rewards or punishments accordingly. This is mere quixotic talk unless one can determine the course of action with consciousness of the fact it is himself who bears all the consequences. To put another way, only the mentally disabled or psychotics can be exempted from the burden of thinking about the outcome in the real world. However, some people condemn responsibility and preach absolute freedom which appears quite appealing to the less critical minds. The truth missing in their argument is that responsibility is the very basis for any right. It would amount to piracy or robbery to claim everything without giving any. There are still others advocating a kind of liberation, removing individual responsibility of the multitude and concentrating it on the few reliable and strong. Their logic would be hugged by dictators and totalitarians since people deprived of the sense of responsibility are much more susceptible to bandwagon and brainwash. It is then a corollary of the necessity of individual responsibility that nobody acts absolutely without exercising his/her volition. Even at the extreme of extremes, choices are not absent but just in a form too compelling to be acknowledged by the mind. Many heroes show how will and discretion can light up life with their admirable spirit of sacrifice and brilliant wisdom. Thousands of American boys volunteered in the war against fascism in the middle of last century. Dubbed as weaklings and far away from battle, they were seemingly obliged to, as isolationists and Nazi thugs had predicted, stay home alive and enjoy peace. But they chose to risk their life and join the oppressed because their conscience, bravery and love of freedom dispersed the darkness of fear and indifference. The scope of choice is determined by the purpose, usually to get the best outcome possible under given circumstances. When sometimes there is no room for choice pointing to the most desirable result, many alternatives are likely to be out there leading to the second best and everyone is more or less good at framing sweet out of strains and mishap. Of course this is not to say external forces or conditions are negligible or not to be considered. In fact they mark out the bounds of choices and our volition. Democracy is based on options, whether electing political leaders, choosing vocations, looking for friends and spouses. In each choice of our own, we must make clear the limits of decisions and use our brains to get the optimal.

Some of my friends suggest acquiring an ETS corpus of excellent essays and reading a lot Washington Post or NY Times. I find in my case this works. But I still get serious problems to let words flow as fast as thoughts. I reaaly envy native speakers of English and I'll try^_^.

Position: Both chidren and adults are to be adequtely covered by social programs and services for the nation's benefit. A :Children are the hope of a nation, whose future strength consists in the wholesome growth of its youth. There should be more social programs and services for children. They need tremendous care and help from the society because they are susceptible to many harm and pressures. (ex: screen violence misleads many youngsters into immitating outlaws and felons, which eventually ruined their life and family.Children are likely to be puzzled by adolescent problems-physical and mental. They experience pressure increasingly intense--from peers, from parents, from the society... ) B: Adults should not be neglected by the society. They are the mainstay of the nation today and deserve rewards.(ex: They operate the government, run business, defend the nation, make scientific research...) They also need care(They bear the burden of winning bread for the family. They experience huge pressure from employment, from family, from peers) If discarded, they may develop health problems or commit ofenses that destroy themselves and society. C: The nation should strike a balance between adults and children in distributing social programs and services.

Thanks,harischandra. Your comment is very enlightening and the logical course of my essay is exactly as what you've pointed out.I'll have it revised to be more clear.Always welcome to comment my job!

The following was posted on an Internet real estate discussion site. "Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents. In contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom work only part-time. Moreover, Adams' revenue last year was twice as high as that of Fitch, and included home sales that averaged $168,000, compared to Fitch's $144,000. Homes listed with Adams sell faster as well: ten years ago, I listed my home with Fitch and it took more than four months to sell; last year, when I sold another home, I listed it with Adams, and it took only one month. Thus, if you want to sell your home quickly and at a good price, you should use Adams." This argument proposes that among the two real estate firms in town Adams Realty is the better choice over Fitch Realty for selling homes quickly and at good prices. For support the author mentions that Adams has more agents and its revenue reported twice that of Fitch last year. Furthermore, home prices of Adams average higher and homes listed with it sell faster, which is projected in the author’s experience that last year he sold a home listed with Adams within a month while ten years ago it took him over four months to do so with another home listed with Fitch. This argument is reasoned with serious flaws. Above all, the author’s experience lends no strong support that homes listed with Adams sell faster. The comparison is inapplicable because his experience with Fitch ten years ago is asynchronous with his with Adams last year. It is quite possible that Fitch betters Adams in performance through its strenuous efforts to streamline its business procedures in the past years. Besides, the author fails to provide adequate individual cases to substantiate the claim that Fitch did sell more slowly than Adams ten years ago. Secondly, the argument is ungrounded in asserting that homes listed with Adams necessarily receive a higher bid. That the average price for homes listed with it is higher than that listed with Fitch does not ensure that anyone who chooses Adams will get a better price. Perhaps Adams arrives at a higher average by selling a few homes at very high prices and many at lower prices than would be possible with Fitch for which the reverse is true. If so, the chance for a better price is greater when one chooses Fitch. What’s more, the author fails to convince us that Adams excels over Fitch in performance. Since Adams has 60 percents more agents than Fitch many of whose agents work only part-time, it follows that revenue of Adams is at most commensurate with its size. Besides, many other factors have to be considered in choosing between the two firms, such as post-sale service, customer satisfaction, business orientation on which the argument does not provide any information. All in all, the conclusion of the argument needs more evidence for support, especially evidence concerning efficiency of transaction of both the firms at present and sales data about price levels of homes listed with each.

"The study of history places too much emphasis on individuals. The most significant events and trends in history were made possible not by the famous few, but by groups of people whose identities have long been forgotten." History is a drama in which there are heroes, heroines and minor characters. It is a joint effort that would be impossible without either stars or lesser roles.The study of history should highlight the famous few who headed the most significant events and trends while at the same time not neglect the multitude whose contribution is indispensable to shape history. Thumbing through history, a flow of shining names marked the most crucial moments of the course of human civilization. Without these monarchs, art maestros, science genii, generals and politicians, renowned or notorious, history would be a bleak winter night rather than a thrilling epic full of twists and flavor. Had Caesar, Augustus or Alexander the Great chosen different courses of life, the glory and prosperity that lit up ancient history would be in question. Art history without Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Van Gough or Picasso would be impossible. Still unimaginable would have been the progress of human intellect if Newton had died in that plague sweeping Europe or Einstein had been killed in the first Great War. It is always the famous few who give shape to history because nobody else is chosen by fate to be in such a position or bestowed with the power and genius that make historic events possible. Though the famous few decide how quickly history advances, it is the people at large who fix the direction. Whenever the few go against the will of the multitude, their fortune becomes dim and history replaces them with others who can win the most favor of the people. The vicissitudes of empires, kingdoms bear this out. Charles I and Louis XVI lost their crowns along with heads in the turmoil and mass hatred resulting from their despotic plundering of the people. Napoleon had his glory bogged in the mud and snow of Russia when he became obsessed with militant greed and set aside the will of his people. In fact, every historic feats by the few have its roots and strength in the multitude. When historic figures fail to command the will of the people, their cause wither and they lose. Study of history should, therefore, strike a balance between major historic figures and the grassroots that backed their cause. To find the fundamental truth driving history ahead, historians know it crystal that the famous few are the captain and the people are the navigator. If studies focus only on the former, what is known about history would be a sermon which preaches but never explains. If inquiries concentrate solely on the latter, history will become a pile of pearls without a string to make them a beautiful necklace.

"Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes acontribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests,however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem." It is widely known that researchers of different disciplines rarely understand each other.No wonder that the public at large are almost blind to what intellectual elites are doing. Therefore it is important that scholars and researchers pursue their own interests without much attention to whether or how their scientific inquiry would benefit the larger society. Across history, all scientific achievements are finally utilized. It would destroy science to let outsiders tamper with the value of scientific research.Barely having a bowing acquaintance with calculus or art history, the general public would act as a blind man driving in the expressway of scientific research if they are put at the wheel to decide the real worth of intellectual inquiry. Legislators or appropriation committee act worse because they are so susceptible to partisans, interest groups and importunate lobbyists that they may intentionally let their judgment go askew. So it is better left to scholars, researchers and experts to evaluate the weight of their inquiry of truth since peer review,workshops and forums are incubators of most of the fundamental scientific achievements that render modern life possible. In fact, seemingly unusual or idiosyncratic pursuits of scholars and researchers have given birth to all the breakthroughs in science that landmarked civilization. If Newton had not been curious about why apples always fall off to the earth rather than rocket into the sky, we would still be puzzled by why one star should revolve round another. Furthermore, Einstein revolutionized physics with relativity theory by asking what would happen if one can run as fast as light. The discovery of penicillin was not a favor of God but Fleming’s wonderment why gravy lest open to air does not spoil. However, if scholars are compelled to research into what is beyond their interests and enthusiasm, there is not just a waste of their genius but a squander of fund. Interests are one’s best teacher, as old sayings go. Besides, all sciences, pure or applied, are useful to mankind. The ancient Greeks spent tremendously on the study of conic curves without the least concern how their results would be used. But for their seemingly wasted efforts, the medieval navigators would have to stay close to coastal lines and discovery of America would be mere mirage. While scholars and researchers should follow their own interests, this is not to say they can free-wheel and misuse science or technology. For instance, the few scientists trying to clone humans have been denounced world-wide. Scientific inquiry must lie within the scope of humanity and ethics. Otherwise the essence of scientific activities as quest for solemn truth and beauty will be lost and the mankind will cast himself in a tragedy. What differentiates man from other beings on earth is he knows he needs to know.Scholars and researchers open up intellectual world for the whole mankind. They should be free and encouraged to do so, and with care.

longe vie Erin! merci@!

The following appeared in a newspaper article about law firms in the city of Megalopolis. "In Megalopolis, the number of law school graduates who went to work for large, corporate firms declined by 15 percent over the last three years, whereas an increasing number of graduates took jobs at small, general practice firms. Even though large firms usually offer much higher salaries, law school graduates are choosing to work for the smaller firms most likely because they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms. In a survey of first-year students at a leading law school, most agreed with the statement that earning a high salary was less important to them than job satisfaction. This finding suggests that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis will need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work." The author concludes that large, corporate firms of Megapollis need to offer graduates more benefits and cut the number of compulsory working hours to raise their job satisfaction. For support of this proposal, the author mentions the falling number of law school graduates working in large corporate firms and an increase in the number of those holding jobs with small, general practice firms. Besides, the author postulates that graduates choose small firms other than large corporate firms because of greater job satisfaction in the former. Finally, the author quotes the result of a survey revealing that most of the first-year students partaking in the poll value job satisfaction over a high salary. The argument is logically untenable in at least three aspects. In the first place, the author fails to convince us that lack of job satisfaction accounts for the dropping number of law school graduates working in large corporate firms.There are other possibilities why large corporate firms lose the favor of graduates. First, there may be new trades or new vocations standing out of the job market that attract law school graduates. Second, if the total enrollment has declined, the number of graduates would surely diminish, not to mention those working in large corporate firms. At last, there may be a downsizing underway in large corporate firms in Megapollis, which can rock prospective employees’ confidence in them and consequently make graduates shy away. Unless enough evidence is present to rule out all the other possibilities, one cannot arbitrarily link the dropping number to lack of job contention. In the second place, the survey result lends no strong support to the author’s postulation that smaller firms in Megapollis offer more job satisfaction to law school graduates. Above all, the subject of the survey, namely the first-year students of a leading law school, are atypical of first-year students in other average law schools, let alone graduates who may have different career orientation. Besides, what one believes now does not necessarily determines how one acts due to the complexity of circumstances and constraints from the milieu, not to mention how one will act a few years later. Finally, no evidence is present to ensure that cutback of compulsory working hours and more benefits will raise job contention on the part of graduates in large, corporate firms. It is possible that high threshold for promotion or demanding standards of performance are what keep employees morose in these firms. Since the author fails to point out the real cause for the decreased number of graduates working in large corporate firms, one cannot expect simply cutting working hours or increasing benefits may to work magic. In a word, the author must establish a persuasive causality between dropping number of graduates working in large, corporate firms and the lack of job satisfaction in order to make the conclusion acceptable.

"The greatness of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their contemporaries." In talking about individual greatness, people naturally refer to what success of the person in point elevated him/her out of the crowd or what marvel of his/her nature lit up the world. We all know about some new comers who make themselves known to the community soon after their arrival and some who are buried in obscurity long before others gain their acquaintance. Alike, all great individuals are not recognized by contemporaries. Art history has seen many great artists who came to fame overnight and others who suffered unfair obscurity in their lifetime. Favored by the Pope, Michelangelo had his name shining for centuries as a genius painter. But Da Vinci was recognized more as a great engineer than a great painter by his contemporaries and it was after his death that the world came to known about his unequaled genius in painting and a host of other disciplines. In music history, Chopin stunned the world at the night when Lister secretly let the former sit in for himself to play for the audience. He was lucky to be able to thrill Vienna and Europe with his talent at an early age, Mendelssohn would have sighed. The whole Europe dreaming in Strauss and Wagner, he had to abide more than his share of the criticism and snub and kept on composing some of his masterpieces that only later became classics and won him an overdue fame. Arts is not the only field where greatness of individuals does not walk hand in hand with their life. Math is a field where recognition of great work often comes overdue.The famous Norwegian mathematician Abel, who proved the insolubility of algebraic equations with orders more than five at the age of 22, was not accepted at all by his fellow mathematicians such as Lagrange, Cauchy and Gauss. Penniless, he died of a disease that was then common among poor people. As to the François Galois, one would be lost in lament because Galois’ thesis that commenced the foundation of modern algebra was rejected twice by the French Institute of Sciences, which destroyed his future as a genius mathematician and drove him to politics, jail, duel and death. Though some mathematicians received world-wide recognizance of their great jobs such as Von Neumann and Jean-Pierre Serre, many masters of math only gained posthumous fame. However, there are also fields where greatness can be seen the moment success is achieved, business not alone. When Bill Gates topped the Forbes list and Microsoft logs dominated PC screens, the whole world enshrined Bill with such enthusiasm that even graders hold him as an idol. Jobs and Dell shared the same experience. In a field like business where success never lasts, greatness of individuals is recognized as quickly as Doe Jones or NASDAQ index changes. In a word, individual greatness is not always recognized at the same time great deed is done. However, gold will glitter and the point is to be great.

Thanks for your comment, grecracker :) But I'm not ready for the exam yet. Never before have I found out it so difficult to express thoughts in wiritten English! This essay took more than 1h and a half! I'm trying to speed up. I have some very useful materials obtained from New Oriental. Maybe we can share ?Are u Chinese, by the way?If so, i believe u already got 'em. ^_^

"Unfortunately, the media tend to highlight what is sensational at the moment. Society would be better served if the media reported or focused more fully on events and trends that will ultimately have the most long-term significance." Some people have whipped the media for its focus on sensational things and failure to inform the public on events that impact the society significantly in the long run. Admittedly, media highlights lack the solemnity and depth usually characteristic of philosophical propositions or mathematical theorems, but news report is marked by immediacy and sensational report is exactly the best thing the media can offer to the society. Media highlights have drawn fire due to their antithetic nature to fundamental truth. Marked by transience, sensational highlights are relatively shocking, entertainment-oriented and titillating and consequently the least informative source from which one can develop holistic or in-depth opinion about things that may have future influences. What’s more, in a democratic society as ours, the media may mislead our legislators and executives by burying things of future significance in the swamping report of sensational news. Besides, sensational highlights consist in largely trash talk-shows and local news bombardment. Therefore they tend to deprive the public of sound judgment on really important things, undermine their collective sensibilities and make them vulnerable to demagogy. However, nothing better can be expected of the media other than highlights. Above all, it is unfair to require the media to cover all the things, sensational or fundamental, happening in the kaleidoscopic world everyday. Furthermore, the media can survive only by catching up with the present. The courses of many events are so unpredictably complicated, usually going another way the moment we have racked our brains to fix the current orientation, that the media can only show us what is happening now. Besides, events and records with considerable future significance are better left to historians, analysts and academic observers who are more ready and suitable in a position to predict. Another justification of media highlights comes from the quick tempo of modern life. Since everybody is busy in his/her business, the highlights suit exactly the case because they are picked out for their current significance. In sum, highlights are the best the media can offer to a society increasingly busy. In fact, the media can serve the society better with filtering of sensational highlights and balanced report orientation. Certainly the media must get rid of trash reports that waste both the time of reporters and audience, not to mention invidious or pernicious contents. Anyhow the society is to be served rather than fooled. There should also be a more balanced orientation in reporting. The categorization of broadsheets and tabloids is desirable because it makes clear the focus of reportation. More importantly, the media should pay closer attention to the truth revealed in reports. The media act as the eyes of the public. Though we like the colorful scenes in sight, we do not want to be so myopic as to lose vision of the significant out of sight.

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." The author concludes that people in Deerhaven Acres should adopt a set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting to raise property worth. To support the conclusion, the author points out that average property values have tripled in Brookville since seven years ago when the home owners there laid down a pack of restrictions on how the community’s yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of houses should be painted. The argument is logically unacceptable due to its weak reasoning. Above all, the author fails to establish convincing causality between the restraints on landscaping and housepainting adopted in Brookville and the appreciation of property worth there. There are many factors that possibly contribute to raise average property values in a given area. First, if there has been a boom of population in Brookville or a reduction of sites suitable for new construction of residencies, the same raise in property worth can be anticipated. Second, Brookville might have carried out other programs that led to appreciation of real estate such as a new tax on real property, a massive construction of new amenities or an impressive improvement in public service as medical care or community security. Third, the local economy in Brookville may have seen a cheerful boom and consequently gave rise to the raise of property values. Other factors that may also help raise property worth are many and the complexity in this case cannot be reduced to thumb ruling as the argument does. Unless more evidences are present to rule out other possibilities, the support lent to the author’s conclusion by the adoption of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting is not persuasive enough. Secondly, the author draws an arbitrary analogy between Brookville and Deerhaven. Even if the adoption of restrictions on landscaping did raise property values in Brookville, it may not work at all in Deerhaven. In fact, Deerhaven might lose its attraction for prospective real estate investors if all houses there come out in more or less monotonous styles. Unless Deerhaven bears huge resemblance to Brookville in geographical endowment, economical situation and population growth and so on, one cannot expect the imitation of Brookville strategy to work the same magic. To raise the property values, Deerhaven must examine its own strength and weakness before making up its mind. Possibly it should better its public service or develop more attractive tourist sights to woo the hearts of prospective investors and inhabitants. To sum up, the conclusion of this argument is based on insufficient reasoning. To make it logically acceptable, more evidence should be present corroborating the causality between restrictions on landscaping and housepainting in Brookville and the appreciation of property worth there. Besides, the author has to convince us with a close analogy of the two towns for the feasibility of the conclusion.