[a习作temp] argument7 [冲刺小组]第五次作业 [复制链接]

chenhaoz
UID：2525010

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 138
注册时间: 2008-7-31
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-8-5 11:39:31 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

This letter is very assertive and illogical due to a lack of evidences and analysis. The article should be strongly changed if the writer want his idea to be persuasive and sensible.

First, the writer should not urge people to vote for certain candidate, if he does not have a warranted reason. The writer uses a reason that the current members of the Clearview town council are not protecting our environment, by giving the example of doubled factories, increased air pollution and more patients in Clearview. They is no evidence or references provided to show those examples are true, and those bad effect cannot be taken as the crime of the Clearview town council even if they are the truth. It is highly possible that the Clearview town council has tried their best to cut down the number of factories, to stop pollution and to serve the people's health, but some other people do it in the opposite way to ruin their efforts, or some other bad affairs happens such as bad climates. So the Clearview town council' efforts are ignored, after the author only pays attention to the results.

Second, Frank Braun does not necessarily represent as the agency of the Clearview town council, even though he is a member of it. The individuals are always not the same as the groups they belong to. For example, some American professors of mine strongly disagree with Bush's policy of putting troops in Iraq, and they make good friends with those Iraqi students who hate US troops very much due to the interference to their life. Those students told me that they hated US troops in their hometown, but they do not hate friendly American individual, especially who oppose Bush's Policy on it. So, a individual, as well as Frank Braun, does not have to agree with where he or she belongs to. The Clearview town council's policy caused so many bad effects, which might have nothing to do or be opposite to the ideas of Frank Braun.

What is more, the last sentence is so assertive. Since no evidence about the behavior of Ann Green and the Good Earth Coalition is provided by the author, he should not make a comment on how well they can solve environment problems after being elected, not to mention giving strong suggestions on electing Ann Green. Some former performances of Ann Green and the Good Earth Coalition is a necessity for the writer to give advice. And even if the evidence is provided, it is also too assertive to say that the environmental problems will certainly be solved, which is only a probability that ought to be aligned with possible suggestions but not assertive ones.

In all, this argument is a very bad one, which does not do a proper work in providing evidences, using logical analysis or giving suggestions. After it is changed in the above ways, or rather, totally changed in them, it will be a good and persuasive letter.

[ 本帖最后由 chenhaoz 于 2008-8-5 11:41 编辑 ]

[a习作temp] argument7 [冲刺 小组]第五次作业 [复制链接]

[a习作temp] argument7 [冲刺小组]第五次作业 [复制链接]