The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.
"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients withrespiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."
提纲：1.空气质量的恶化不一定是因为工厂数量变多导致的，犯了时序性因果错误。
2.即便说工厂数量增加导致了空气质量大不如以前，但也不能说明就是空气质量导致了当地医院因呼吸道疾病就诊的数量增加25% 这样一个个问题很严重，因为不知道基数到底有多大，犯了缺少绝对基数的错误。
3.即便说当地医院因呼吸道疾病就诊的数量增加了25％这个问题的确很严重，也不能说这与Frank Braun有关系，可能还有其他一些原因，犯了忽略他因的错误。
4.即便说这些问题都与Frank Braun有关系但不能说找来Ann Green这些问题就都能解决掉，犯了充分条件错误。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement draws the conclution that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Greeen rather than for Frank Braun who belong to the Cleaview town council. To substantiate this conclution the arguer point out that current members neglect to protect the environment.In addition he indicates that air pollution levels have increased due to the last year's increase in the number of factories in Clearview. Futhermore, the arguer cites the recent survey in support of the recommendation.At first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflecting reveals it omits some substantial concerns that should be adressed in this argument.From logical pespective, this argument suffers from 3 logic flaw.
The treshold problem is that the worsening of air condition in that air pollution levels have increased occured after the last year's increase in number of factories,then the author infers that the early event developoment must be arributable to the latter one. This assumption is unwarranted, it might have result from other causes instead: the climate of Clearview and the location of Clearview to just a few posibilities. Without ruling out scenarios such as these, the arguer cannot establish cause-and-effect relationship between these two events.
Another problem weakens the logic of this argument is that,even if,the increasing number of factories caused the worsening of air condition, the argument resets on the further assumption that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illness was one of the factors in those decisions. But since the editorial provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption it is entirely possible that the arguer fails to provide information regarding the absolute number of the patients, or if the grosses are considerable which account for only a little percentage of patient which would render the survey meaningless.
Even assumption that the worsening of air condition was at least partially responsible for 25 percent more patients suffer from respiratory illness, the arguer neglects to provide firm evidence to support the assumption that Braun was the factor in those dicisions it is equally possible that the arguer fails to account for other possible causes of such health problem, this kind of problem might have been due to the influx of people with pre-existing such problem
and to more effective cigarette maketing. Without ruling out these and other alternatives, the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that Braun was the factor in those decisions.
Before I come to my conclusion it is necessary to point out the last flaw involved in this argument is that even if do indicate that these two increases must be attributable to Braun, the arguer provides no convincing evidence to strength the assumption that Ann Greeen is better than Braun. The argument assumes too hastily that Ann Greeen will necessarily result in the behavior that the argument predicts.Perhaps Ann Greeen would not be effective in
reversing this trend,let alone less effective than Braun. The arguer fails to establish the casual relationship between the protecting of local environment
and Ann Greeen who is just the member of the Good Earth Coalition.This argument is unacceptable unless there is conpelling evidence to support the connection between these events,perhaps for example legal,result from morality.
To sum up, the arguer fails to substantiate the conclution that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Greeen rather than for Frank Braun who belong to the Cleaview town council,because evidence in analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.To make this argument more conving the arguer would have to provide more information with regard to the scope of the Cleaview town council's authority respecting environmental decisions. Additionaly he would have to demonstrate the rights of residents of Clearview,in itself, to protect their environment.Therefore, if the argument had included the factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.