[i习作temp] argument7 我的第一篇 [复制链接]

wangdl07
UID：2512198

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 50
注册时间: 2008-7-6
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-7-28 22:55:04 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

In this analysis the arguer attempts to tell us that Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coaliton, will be ellected to be the new mayor, while Frank Braun, a member of the current town concile will not. Because in the view of the arguer, the current town concile isn't protecting the environment. To substatiate the claim that the current members are not protecting the environment, the arguer provides the evidence that the number of the factories doubled, the level of the air pollution increased and the patients with respiratory illnesses increase. At a first glance, the analysis seems reasonable. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless it is.
Firstly, the arguer assumed that if Ann Green is elected, the environmental problem will be solved. We should admit tat Ann will surely care more about the environmental problems. However, solving the environmental problems as a mayor required more than just care. It can be related to other fields as well. Such as the field of politics, the economics, the industry and so on. Just as a member of an environmentalist, Ann is probably short of the ability to handle such a big problem. Even he can solve the problem very well, it is still hard for him to be a good mayor. Because as a mayor, solving the environmental problems is only a small part of his duty. From the analysis, we cannot find any evidence showing that he can be a good mayor. While the citizen cannot be sure that Ann can be a good mayor, how can they elect him?
Secondly, the facts the arguer provided are insufficient to support the conclusion draw from it. The fact that the number of the factories doubled during the past years doesn't means the environmental condition gets worse. Perhaps the new factories all take effective ways to prevent the pollution. In this case, they didn't pollute the environment. The arguer then go on with the fact that the air pollution level has increased. However, we all know the fact that the air pollution level is getting higher all around the world. It has become the globle trend. The current members of the council cannot the change this situation that easily. Maybe without the work of the current members of the council the level of the air pollution may get higher. As to the third fact that the patients with respiratory illnesses increased, it is highly possible that other factors may have contributed to this. Not all patients with this kind of illness are due to the fact that the environmental condition is bad. They may be born with the illness. Or perhaps the total population increased, as a result, the number of the patients increased. So, we cannot conclude that the current town council is not protecting the environment.
Thirdly, even the current members are not protecting the environment, it doesn't mean that Frank himself is not care about the environment. Probably many of his coworkers do not have the same ideas with him, he cannot take his ideas into action.
In sum, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer should provide better evidence that how well Ann is doing in other fields besides the fact that he is an environmentalist, what things the currents did cause the 3 facts the arguer list above, and what Frank's attitude towards environment protection is.