问一篇argument时态问题
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.“In the first four years that Montoya has served as mayor of the city of San Perdito, the population has decreased and the unemployment rate has increased. Two businesses have closed for each new business that has opened. Under Varro, who served as mayor for four years before Montoya, the unemployment rate decreased and the population increased. Clearly, the residents of San Perdito would be best served if they voted Montoya out of office and reelected Varro.”The arguer criticizes mayor Montoya and praises the former mayor Varro. The reasons cited are that the population has decreased, the unemployment rate has increased and more businesses have closed than opened when Montoya was the mayor, whereas in the Varro’s term, everything is opposite to Montoya’s.. Then, the arguer presumes that the residents would be better served if Varro was reelected. In my point of view, the arguer makes several mistakes.
First of all, the arguer unfairly assumes that the number of businesses opened and closed is an apparent sign of a city’s economy. If the city had many inferior businesses during the period of Varro, then the bad businesses should close. If they did't close, they would go in debt and therefore affect the health of the whole economy in this city. Likewise, it is unwarranted to judge a city's economy by the number of new businesses opened. If the new businesses are low quality ones, then the city will suffer a lot. Thus, it is possible that the Montoya mayor only did an excellent job to close weak and open high-quality businesses.
Second, the arguer unreasonably compares Montoya and Varro. Although the population increased during Varro's term and decreased during Montoya's time, there might be other factors that affected population. For example, it is likely that during the period of Montoya, there was a serious earthquake in the city, leading to a dramatically decreased population. As for the unemployment rate, it is possible that more people would like to quit their jobs, because of the better social beneficial services. If so, it is Montoya who better served the residents of San Perdito. Also, many other factors such as the environment, the public facilities, and salaries should be compared between the two mayors. Or, this comparison is unfounded.
In conclusion, the arguer compares the two mayors in a too simple way and criticizes Montoya unconvincingly. In order to get a better conclusion, the arguer should investigate more factors reflecting the governor’s results.
以上是我的拙作，想请问NN，我写的第二段（First of all......）的if 后面应该用什么时态比较好呢？感觉很混乱，一者是arguer说的情况发生在过去，那么我鉴于过去的假设应该用过去是；二者是我不是在陈述arguer的叙述而是在作分析，那么应该用一般现在时。我也糊涂了，请达人指点~ 你可以用现在时陈述arguer的观点，但是用过去时描述两个mayor当政时各自情况 谢谢斑竹了
页:
[1]