argument 112完全自己写的，可以帮我看看吗？大致给个分数，点评一下?非常感激~

小付UID: 2773363

argument 112.doc (29.5 KB, 下载次数: 0)

2010-6-9 22:08:16 上传

下载次数: 0

完全自己写的，可以帮我看看吗？大致给个分数，点评一下~非常感激不尽~

In this argument the arguer suggests that Franklin Airport should build new runways to reduce the flight delays. In order to support the recommendation, the arguer points out that the action will be necessary to reduce the fight delays and it will help develop the bay’s environment instead of hurting it. A scrutiny of the argument renders the proposal unadvisable to be adopted.

Firstly, the arguer unfairly assumes that it is the lack of runways rather than other factors that resulted in the frequent flight delay. Without clear evidence to prove it is the case, the arguer overlooks other possible factors causing this problem. Perhaps it is the bad weather, such as dense fog and heavy wind that attributes the flight delays. Or perhaps the management system of the airport is inefficient and the policy is not implemented strictly or the airplanes are in need of renewal or maintenance. Without ruling out all the possibilities above, the arguer cannot convince us that the flight delays are only due to the lack of runways.


Secondly, the evidence cited in the argument is insufficient to conclude that the bay’s environment will be helped rather hurt after adopting the proposal. The first reason, the fact that the airport says it will fund the restoration of the wetland does not indicate it will be responsible for accomplishing the work. As we all know the restoration of the wetland is a formidable project, it is entirely possible that the airport’s promise of the fund is just a trick to gain the support of the government and it might broke its promise after the proposal is passed. Or it might just provide a negligible fund which does little help to the restoration of wetlands. Another reason, the construction of new runways will bring unforeseeable damage to the environment which might be unable to be restored. In short the restoration of 1000 acres of wetlands cannot equal to the damage of the new runways to the bay.

Finally, the arguer overlooks other negative effects of the proposal besides the environmental problem. Even though the building of its new runways can reduce the fight delays, it is possible that the profits by the increase of the customers might not be sufficient to offset the costs of building the new runways and the fund of wetlands restoration. Furthermore, many other available methods besides the arguer’s proposal could also be used to achieve the same purpose. For example, the company can renew the equipments of the airplanes or it can improve its management and service systems. Before the arguer make a careful and comparison between the effectiveness of his/her proposal and other possible methods, the arguer’s proposal should not be hastily carried out.


In sum, the proposal is unadvisable as it stands. To strengthen the recommendation, the arguer must provide evidence that the flight delays are attributable to the lack of runways rather than other factors. The arguer also must ensure that Franklin Airports will realize its promise of funding the restoration of wetlands. To better assess the argument, I would need to know what alternatives, if any, are available for reducing the flight delays.