标题: argument7 by [728西安]小红莓 [打印本页] 作者: 小红莓 时间: 2009-7-15 23:13:59 标题: argument7 by [728西安]小红莓
TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - 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 with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."
WORDS: 519
TIME: 00:40:00
DATE: 2009-7-15 23:09:55
In this argument, the editor concludes that in the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, so that the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved. To support this conclusion, the editor mentioned that Ann Green is a member of Good Earth Coalition while Frank Braun, to be a member of the Clearview town council, and the current members are not protecting our environment. The author also claims that during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illness. The argument is logically flawed in several critical aspects.
To begin with, the fact that the number of factories in Clearview has doubled was not necessary to support the arguer's claim. It is not mentioned that the new factories are all polluting ones. Perhaps the new factories are all environment-protecting ones which use new energy such as the energy of wind, sun, or nuclear and as a consequence have no bad effect on environment.
Next, there are many possibilities that result in the fact that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illness. Firstly, the 25 percent is not an accurate statistic, if the number of patients was 4 before, 25 percent means nothing. Even if the total number of patients is really increased, perhaps it is because the population of the local people has largely increased. Or perhaps the local people were favored of smoking in the last year.
Additionally, the fact that air pollution levels have increased was probably not due to the town council. Perhaps the council has made decision to protect the air but the other related apartment could not effectively take into action. Or perhaps the government took action but its effect has not been apparently showed during only one year. Even if the environmental problems were due to the town council, the author fails to prove that it is the decision of Frank Braun. Perhaps Frank Braun is an environment friendly member but his suggestions are always ignored by the council. If so, the argument may just prove that Frank Braun should be given more rights to have his suggestion realized.
Even if Frank Braun is really not protecting environment, there may be someone else who is better fit for the mayor. The author fails to convince me that Ann Green is environment friendly. Even if he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, perhaps he is not the ones who always solve the environmental problems. And when voting for mayor, there must be some other factors that should be taken into consideration, such as the wisdom, ability, and so on. Without enough information to show that Ann Green is the best one, the arguer's conclusion is unreliable.
To sum up, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author should provide clear evidence to show that the local environment problems are really worsen and it is due to Frank Braun, and Ann Green is the best one to be the mayor.作者: tidejoy 时间: 2009-7-16 11:40:49