[a习作temp] argument7 [戮力同心小组] 模考练习7 by liyi2321 留链回拍 [复制链接]

liyi2321
UID: 2252012

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 34
寄托币: 1426
注册时间: 2006-9-13
精华: 3
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-18 17:55:41 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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."

In this argument, the arguer recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green but not Frank Braun because the current members are not concerned about the environment. To support his conclusion, he points out that the number of factories in Clearview has doubled and air pollution levels have increased. Moreover, the local hospital treats 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. However, I find some critical fallacies in this argument so I cannot believe the recommendation is sufficient.

First, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the pollution level and the increasing factories. He simply asserts that because the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, so the pollution level has increased. But it isn't necessary the case. It is possible that the car pollution mainly ascribe to the increasing level or air pollution because there are more cars in Clearview than before. But the factories are very care about the rubbish of theirs and they carry out many plans to decrease the pollution which is caused by them. In that case, the arguer should not blame the factories for their careless of environmental protection.

Second, lacking of reasons for the respiratory illnesses, we cannot conclude that the increasing patients for respiratory illnesses cause by the air pollution. There are many other factors which will also lead the people suffer some respiratory illnesses. Maybe more patients infect a new bacteria or virus during the survey, which lead more people go to hospital for treatment of these illnesses. Thus, lacking necessary reason about the illnesses, we cannot unfairly assume that the reason is air pollution.

What is more, the arguer assumes that Frank Braun is responsible for the air pollution. But he doesn't provide the evidence of that. He only points out that the current members of the town council are not protecting their environment, which cannot indicate that Frank Braun is also careless about environment. It is entirely possible that Frank Braun tries many attempts to protect the environment but it is not enough to get a satisfying result only by himself. Without the support of the town council, he may be unable to contribute more for the improvement of the environment. If true, the arguer should reevaluate his conclusion.

Finally, the arguer assumes that Ann Green is fitter for Clearview than Frank Braun. But the evidence which he provides is not enough or even insufficient. For one thing, the arguer fails to prove that Ann Green will carry out some plans for environmental protection if she wins the election. Perhaps she will not do more in improving the environment because of the town council. Or she isn't concern about environment at all, even as a member of Good Earth Coalition. For another thing, the evaluation of a leader should depend on many aspects, one of which is the environmental protection. It is possible that Frank Braun has a perfect plan for the future of Clearview but Ann Green doesn't have some innovative thoughts in improving the Clearview. Therefore, lacking comparison of the two candidates, we cannot conclude who is better.

To sum up, the arguer should reevaluate the two candidates roundly. Not only do we include the perspective on environmental protection, but also many aspects need to be considered.