[a习作temp] 【kaleidoscope】小组第三次作业 AGRUMENT7 by 网兜妮妮 [复制链接]

网兜妮妮
UID: 2612538

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 8
寄托币: 1213
注册时间: 2009-3-7
精华: 0
帖子: 9

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-6 12:26:12 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由网兜妮妮于 2009-8-8 12:17 编辑

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."

Merely base on three unfound dubious evidence to conclude mayor Frank did not protect our environment lacks evidence, also, the final conclusion that we should choose Ann Green to be our mayor and the environment problem is certainly be solved seems not convincing. Actually, there are three logical false in the author's analysis.

Firstly, during last year, the doubled of the factory number, the increased air pollution levels, and the more people with respiratory illnesses may not because of the worse of environment. Maybe the population of Clearview has increased, so the number of factories raised to meet the economic developed, and with more people living here, the car number has increased as well as the air pollution level, then, the hospital treated more patients with respiratory illnesses. Or perhaps the sudden climate change which cause the increase of air pollution level and the increased respiratory illnesses, but the factory number doubled for the policy reasons. Without more specific evidences, it is unwise to make sure the sighs above indicted the worse of environment in Clearview.

Secondly, even if all above increase is cause by environment problem, there lacks evidence to show it is because of Frank Braun. may be he has already took actions to stop it ,but need more time to have effects; or it is the nearby city's pollutions which impact on our residence as well as the air pollution level ,not our mayor’s mistake; or Frank's environment protection policy was not well done by the officials. Without eliminated other alternations, we can not surly conclude it is Braun who do not protect the environment and make the situation worse.

Thirdly, even the assumptions above are true, no evidence to support if we choose Ann Green to be the mayor, the environment condition will be promoted and the environmental problem will be solved. Only because she is a number of Good Earth Coalition, we can only conclude that she will be interested in environment protection. but does she have the ability to range the environment policy? Is she an effective leader compared with Braun? Or what she is done in the past to indicate she is the proper person as a mayor? Moreover, is there any one who is better than her for the mayor’s position? Lacking all the detailed information, we can not conclude she will be the best mayor to solve the environmental problems.

In sum, the conclusion of the author is not well supported. The argument's proponent must consider and eliminate all other possible explanations for the cause of increased air pollution level, respiratory illnesses and the doubled factory number. Also, the author needs to consider other aspects to decide whether to choose Ann Green to be the mayor, or there are other people who is better for the position.

清空~~明媚吧~~~

回应
0

使用道具举报

atticuswang
UID: 2663189

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 264
注册时间: 2009-7-10
精华: 0
帖子: 5

沙发

发表于 2009-8-6 21:47:02 |只看该作者

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."

Merely base(d) on three (pieces of) unfound dubious evidence to conclude mayor Frank did not protect our environment lacks(主语呢？前面加一个fact吧要不就有两个谓语动词了) evidence, also, the final conclusion that we should choose Ann Green to be our mayor and the environment problem is certainly (to) be solved seems not convincing. Actually, there are three logical false(fallacies比较好，false是形容词)
in the author's analysis.

Firstly, during last year, the doubled of the factory number, the increased air pollution levels, and the more people with respiratory illnesses may not because of the worse of environment（缺少谓语动词）. Maybe the population of Clearview has increased, so the number of factories raised （rise, raise 是vt）to meet the economic developed, and with more people living here, the car number has increased as well as the air pollution level, then, the hospital treated more patients with respiratory illnesses. Or perhaps the sudden climate change which(去掉) cause the increase of air pollution level and the increased respiratory illnesses, but the factory number doubled for the policy reasons. Without more specific evidences, it is unwise to make sure the sighs above indicted the worse of environment in Clearview.

Secondly, even if all above increase is cause by environment problem, there lacks evidence to show it is because of Frank Braun. may be he has already took actions to stop it ,but needs more time to have effects(不大明白); or it is the nearby city's pollutions which impact on our residence as well as the air pollution level ,not our mayor’s mistake; or Frank's environment protection policy was not well done by the officials. Without eliminated(eliminating) other alternations, we can not surly conclude it is Braun who do not protect the environment and make the situation worse.

Thirdly, even if the assumptions above are true, no evidence to support if we choose Ann Green to be the mayor, the environment condition will be promoted and the environmental problem will be solved. Only because she is a number of Good Earth Coalition, we can only conclude that she will be interested in environment protection. but does she have the ability to arrange the environment policy? Is she an (more) effective leader compared with Braun? Or what she is done in the past to indicate she is the proper person as a mayor? Moreover, is there any one who is better than her for the mayor’s position? Lacking all the detailed information, we can not conclude she will be the best mayor to solve the environmental problems. (这一段很有气势，一连串的反问加推测，还有递进关系咄咄逼人，值得学习)

In sum, the conclusion of the author is not well supported. The argument's proponent must consider and eliminate all other possible explanations for the cause of increased air pollution level, respiratory illnesses and the doubled factory number. Also, the author needs to consider other aspects to decide whether to choose Ann Green to be the mayor, or there are other people who is better for the position.（好，我咋就想不到？）
1# 网兜妮妮

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报