[a习作temp] 二战的第一篇argu 留链回拍哈~~ 谢谢~ [复制链接]

nieyong
UID: 2742661

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 12
寄托币: 749
注册时间: 2009-12-26
精华: 0
帖子: 10

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-8-10 22:58:16 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

希望看看自己重新开始的状态怎么样~！！请留链回拍哈~！~！

TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - The following appearedin 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 GoodEarth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview towncouncil, because the current members are not protecting our environment. Forexample, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled,air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, theenvironmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."

The suggestion of voting for Green in the mayoral election at firstglance seems sound based upon the evidence that the Clearview town council,which Braun belongs to, is not protecting environment. However, to prove thesehypothesises needs more careful reasoning.

A threshold problem involves what themayoral election actually emphasizes? Do we judge an effective mayor merely onwhether he protects the environment? Do citizens only consider the environmentaround them? Surely not! There are many issues a mayor should take intoaccount, such as the economy, the warfare of the whole citizens and the like.Therefore, the author's assumption that Braun should not be voted because theenvironment is not protected is really dubious.

Secondly, the examples don't lend enoughsupport to the author assumption that the members are not protecting theenvironment. First, the augmentation in factory numbers may be the economicplan established many years ago and was just finished construction last year.What's more, not all the factories are polluting the environment, greenfactories exist as well, the aggravated air pollution may be the result of theclimate change. Besides, we don't know the change in the exact numbers of overallpeople, "25 percent" means nothing; a sudden influx of people ispossible. Also the respiratory illness may caused by certain acute contagiousdisease rather than the air pollution. These scenarios, if true, may castserious doubt upon the author's conclusion.

Furthermore, Even if the members of thetown council didn't protect the environment, shall Braun be responsible for thecase? Maybe Braun is not the chief member of town council at that time or hecannot alter the policy made by all the members. Also, what the current membershave done don't meant to last forever. Perhaps, these members come to be awareof the importance of the environment and change the policy to be friendly tothe environment or even these members are not going to have reappointment intown council to pacify the complaint of the public. If in this case, then theconclusion would lack any merits whatsoever.

Last but not the least, the author'sconclusion is based on a hasty generalization that Green is and is the only onethat should be voted in the next mayoral election. We have no idea of thepractical condition of Green. Is he good enough for the position? Can hecertainly do better than Braun? Besides, are there any other candidates? Theseare all open to doubt and maybe another one could be more prominent and winmuch more support.

In sum, the author's conclusion is unpersuasiveas it stands. To bolster it, the author should reconsider what factors arereally needed in the characteristic of an eminent mayor. To better support thelogic, the author requires more cogent evidence to substantiate Town council's delinquencyin environment protection. To better assess the argument, we would need moredetails in the work of both Braun and Green.

[a习作temp] 二战的第一篇argu 留链回拍哈~~ 谢谢~ [复制链接]

站长推荐