[a习作temp] argument7 必互拍~~ [复制链接]

Specter
UID：2297405

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 28
注册时间: 2007-1-28
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-4-2 10:16:37 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

7The 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."

------------------------------

In this letter, the author claims that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election to solve the environmental problems in Clearview. This argument appears to be somewhat warranted at first glance, however, a comprehensive examination would point out how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the facts cited are insufficient to substantiate that Clearview suffered from the environmental problems. It is very likely that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses due to a serious epidemic broken out during the past year, such as influenza or pneumonia. It is equally possible that air pollution levels have increased because neighboring cities produced much exhausted gas, and the gas also influenced the air levels of Clearview in a period of time. In addition, from a different perspective, the number of factories has doubled benefited the economic condition of Clearview. If these factories have taken proper measures to eliminate the exhausted gas, it would not cause any environmental problems. Therefore, the conclusion is open to doubt unless the author consider and rule out all the possibilities discussed above.

Furthermore, even we are well informed that there are environmental problems in Clearview; the arguer fails to convince us that Ann Green can solve the problems, though she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. Being a member of an environmental protecting organization does not necessarily mean doing environmental protecting jobs. It might be the case that she newly took part in the coalition and thus have no experience of protecting environment. It might also be the case that she was in charge of the finance department of the Good Earth Coalition, so she is an accountant rather than an environmentalist. In short of specific information about her performance in the coalition, it is impossible to prove Ann's ability to solve environmental problems.

Even assuming that Ann indeed has the ability to solve the environmental problem, should the residents vote for her in the mayoral election? Common sense tells us that a major should deal with many problems of different spheres. It is quite possible that Ann is familiar with environmental problems and is quite clear how to solve them, but she knows little, if any, to manage the municipal work well. Under this circumstance, residents should vote for her in the election of environmental officials, instead of mayor.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence provided in the analysis leads no strong support to what the arguer suggests. Hence, whether the residents should vote for Ann in the next mayoral election should be reevaluated. After all, it concerns a lot to the environmental condition, and even the whole future development of Clearview.

回应
0

使用道具举报

cocoon_mm
UID：2259908

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 2347
注册时间: 2006-10-7
精华: 0
帖子: 15

沙发

发表于 2007-4-2 14:26:11 |只看该作者

7The 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."

------------------------------

In this letter, the author claims that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election to solve the environmental problems in Clearview. This argument appears to be somewhat warranted at first glance, however, a comprehensive examination would point out how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the facts cited are insufficient to substantiate that Clearview suffered from the environmental problems. （这个怀疑写得不是很确切觉得，他空气污染程度加重肯定是有污染的啊。感觉说成suffered from the environmental problems to the extent that it should be considered seriously in the mayor election会好一些，即环境污染是不是严重到了要在选市长中来考虑)It is very likely that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses due to a serious epidemic broken out during the past year, such as influenza or pneumonia. It is equally possible that air pollution levels have increased because neighboring cities produced much exhausted gas, and the gas also influenced the air levels of Clearview in a period of time. In addition, from a different perspective, the number of factories has doubled benefited the economic condition of Clearview. If these factories have taken proper measures to eliminate the exhausted gas, it would not cause any environmental problems. Therefore, the conclusion is open to doubt unless the author consider and rule out all the possibilities discussed above.

Furthermore, even we are well informed that there are environmental problems in Clearview; the arguer fails to convince us that Ann Green can solve the problems, though she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition 就是她是会员不代表就能解决么就算我们选她她也不一定可以解决，她的施政纲领是什么没提. Being a member of an environmental protecting organization does not necessarily mean doing environmental protecting jobs. It might be the case that she newly took part in the coalition and thus have no experience of protecting environment. It might also be the case that she was in charge of the finance department of the Good Earth Coalition, so she is an accountant rather than an environmentalist. In short of specific information about her performance in the coalition, it is impossible to prove Ann's ability to solve environmental problems.

Even assuming that Ann indeed has the ability to solve the environmental problem, should the residents vote for her in the mayoral election? Common sense tells us that a major should deal with many problems of different spheres. It is quite possible that Ann is familiar with environmental problems and is quite clear how to solve them, but she knows little, if any, to manage the municipal work well. Under this circumstance, residents should vote for her in the election of environmental officials, instead of mayor.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence provided in the analysis leads no strong support to what the arguer suggests. Hence, whether the residents should vote for Ann in the next mayoral election should be reevaluated. After all, it concerns a lot to the environmental condition, and even the whole future development of Clearview.

看了你整个文章都在围绕 Ann Green
回过头看看作者的逻辑链他说的是要投票给ann 因为他可以解决环境问题而Frank Braun解决不了
Frank Braun 你一点都没有提唉

欢迎回拍
http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/thread-638136-1-1.html

使用道具举报