sameersrinivas90

Hi Guys, Please vote my below essay: 
 
"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 author's argument of having own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise the property values of Deerhaven is flawed. The author not only uses weak evidence which is 7 years old to support his argument, but also uses some vague and ambiguous terms  to draw his conclusions. Furthermore, he focuses his attention only on the landscaping and painting of homes as solely responsible for raise of property values ignoring several other factors which will affect it.   To begin, the conclusion is based largely on the perception that landscaping and painting of homes will alone add value to the properties. The author spends lots of time trying to demonstrate this. However, the authhor fails to consider several other factors responsible for raising property values. For example, properties which are near to hospitals, schools, colleges, cinema, market, bus stand, railway stations etc... are likely to have more value than the ones which are far away from these facilities. Additionally, some times properties which lie nearer to these facilities are rated high irrespective of its landscape and paintings. Since the author does not consider these points, it is impossible to say just by landscaping of the yards and house paintings, property values are going to increase.   Furthermore, the author even uses some vague and ambiguous words in stating his argument. He does not provide any insight into the set of restrictions followed by the Brookville community for landscaping and paintings. Additionally, he also mentions we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and paintings without giving any hint on the restrictions to be followed. There are chances that Brookville community devised good plans like planting trees infront of every home, building parks, devising sanitary maintainences plan etc.. which definitely added value to its properties over years. However, the author not only des not mention restrictions followed by Broolville, but also states we should adopt certain restrictions without defining what those restrictions really are. Since the author does not provide any information on the restrictions followed by Brookville and the restrictions to be followed by Deerhaven, it is impossible to say following restrictions will add value to the property as the author concludes.   The argument could be strengthened if the author provided information on the set of restrictions which he is planning to adopt. The argument could be further strengthened if the author were to consider all the factors responsible for an increase in the property value. As it stands, however, the argument in its current form is flawed.