[a习作temp] emulate小组_argu7_zleung [复制链接]

zleung
UID：2837752

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 15
寄托币: 122
注册时间: 2010-6-20
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-12-9 22:47:15 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

【题目】ARGUMENT  7
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."

提纲：
1，原因：FB所在的town council没有保护环境
   结论：选民应该选AG，这个环境问题就会得到解决
                  tonw council没有保环境不代表FB不保护环境
                  没有证据表明AG当选环境问题就会解决
                  保护环境只是市长的职责的一部分，不能只依靠环境方面的功绩来判断候选人的能力
2，对于没有保护环境的论述
               去年的情况不一定代表今年的情况，工厂的增加不能说明环境污染（环保型工厂），呼吸病人的增加不能说明环境污染（其它城镇，以前染病最近发作），环境的污染不能说明FB所在的TONW COUNCIL没有努力

字数：436
正文：
The author asserts in the letter that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun in the next mayoral election for the reason that Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council whose members are not protecting our environment. I find this argument flawed in several critical respects.

Firstly, the author wrongfully regards enrironmental protection as a primary duty of a candidate, while egnoring other important capabilities necessary for a mayor. I concede that enviranmental protection is a very important duty of a mayor, especially in high industrilized town, but it is not the only prerequitive for being a good mayor. After all, the mayor of a town should pay attention to economical development because the government get sufficient funds, then to develop helth care and education. So, we can not decide which candidate is more competent for that position only from the capability of solving environmental problems.

Sedondly, even if the capability of protecting the environment is crucial part of competence for a mayor, evidence is lacking to prove that Fraun Braun are not protecting the environment. The author points out that members of the town council do not protect the environment, it does not mean Fraun Braun is one of them. It is entirely possible that Fraun Braun appeals to solve the environmental problems while the others in the town council ignore it. Even if Fraun Braun really does not exert in evrironmental protection, will Ann Green surely be competent for the position? Yet the author only provides such few information of Ann Green as he is a member of Good Earth Coalition, and it is still suspicious whether goes on with the main idea of Good Earth if he is elected. In addition, as I stated above, aspiration in environmental protection is far from being a good mayor, unless the athor provides comprehensive information of Ann Green, the suggestion of voting for Ann Green is unreasonable.

Thirdly, the assertion that town council members are not protecting the environment is unpersuasive. Only should we know the actions the council took during the past years and then compare them with the effect produced, can we judge whether the council is protecting the environment, the example of doubled factories and increased level of air pollution is far from sufficient to deny the effort of town council on environmental protection. Maybe the speed of increasement of air pollution level has slowed down even though it is still increasing. So the author can not make the conclusion that town council is not protecting the environment.

In sum, this argument is unconvincing. To further strengthen it, the author should provide strong evidence that Frauk Braun is not compensate for the mayor while Ann Green is qualified.