[a习作temp] Argument7 =So What=小组第一次作业 by 米丽水 [复制链接]

Environmental problems have become a major concern in Clearview mayoral election because whether a candidate will get final victory depends on the ability of solving such problems. 这个题中说了吗?题中说的前半句我同意，但后半句因为一个候选人能否取得最终的胜利取决于他解决环境问题的能力？我觉得有点曲解原文
这个原因不是环境问题变成焦点的直接原因不能用because!删除！因为环境问题在该市很突出。The citizens in Clearview believe Anne Green from Good Earth Coalition 删掉can solve the problem just because
she comes from Good Earth Coalition, a group related to Environmental protection.while another candidate Frank Braun from the current administration cannot do that.
这个不是居民的观点，是作者的观点，完全错误Obviously, that Anne Green is from the environmental protection group doesn’t necessarily mean he can effectively deal with pollution and he will be a good major who is not only able to ensure the environment quality but also to improve living conditions, so whether Anne Green is equipped with the ability of getting all the industries moving fluently and effectively is a question分析一个论一个，先论选安能解决环保问题因为她是环保组织成员。反驳能否解决环保问题不能看她从哪里来，更重要地要看重能力，有没有环保业绩。作者没有提到。还有即使她有环保业绩，那么她适合当市长吗？当市长不仅要保护环境，还要发展经济教育等，要的是他的协调各部门能力，她能担任吗？作者没有说，那么又怎么能说服居民投安的票呢？

Equally, Frank Braun cannot->改为should not get public support just because he is from the current government which has been said to lack environmental awareness. 下面就可以论即使当今政府缺乏环保意识，难道每一位成员都没有环保意识，怎么能以整体的消极否认个体的消极？整体的结果是多个个体合力的结果，说不定其他成员的意志掩盖了弗兰克的意志，说不定他很关注环境，也作出了业绩呢，投安票就对弗兰克不公平During the past year, the number of factories has been folded, the air pollution has become more severe and people treated in local hospital have had an increase in respiratory illnesses by 25%. Even if we were to blame the government, has Frank Braun really made no efforts in environment?
Maybe this is a puzzle.

As for the government’s unawareness of environmental issues, the data is worthy to be reconsidered.

下面论说到政府不保护环境，这些事实有问题。First, the new factories will not certainly be a source of pollution and maybe they are environment-friendly.应该说这些新工厂未必是污染源，看看这个词certainly用得，一用就是这些新工厂一定不是污染源了，意思错误。后面还要继续反驳，难道数量增长就一定说明空气污染是这些工厂导致的？其实应该先陈述作者的论据，然后再反驳 Second, the deterioration of air quality is not only caused by the pollution from the local city but also from other areas where the wind comes.先陈述作者的观点，再反驳 Third, the cases of respiratory illnesses increase possibly from born defects or aging and it cannot make it certain whether these cases are sure to be caused by pollution.
新工厂数量增多-à空气污染严重-à呼吸疾病患者增多
这个链怎么反驳呢？怎样反驳有效？显然前面是原因，后面是结果
所以1+2应该一块说，2+3应该一块说。不能单从数量上断定该工厂是否污染，要从排放量，排放物上判断。新工厂要是不是煤粉型的那么对空气危害不大；要是是环保友好型的就没得说，那么可能是邻区污染带来的；然后是导致病人增多，这个原因未必是空气污染造成的，还有流感等传播。都是从原因上下手，层层推进的。
The argument is not convincing. Whether Anne Green really will fulfill his duty and provide a better environment is not sure and there is not much evidence on whether the current government and its member Frank Braun are not concerned of the environment. The author needs to offer more information so that voters agree with his/her views.

总结还行。

总之，整篇文章没有把握好结构，论据不充分，最重要的要有总分总的概念，转折词的衔接，这都没有很好体现。语句结构不好，虽然没有多大语病，可是读起来很费劲。希望多看看优秀习作，模板，总结一些经典表达句式，提高整个文章的档次。

Environmental problems have become a major concern in Clearview mayoral election because whether a candidate will get final victory depends on the ability of solving such problems. 这个题中说了吗?题中说的前半句我同意，但后半句因为一个候选人能否取得最终的胜利取决于他解决环境问题的能力？我觉得有点曲解原文
这个原因不是环境问题变成焦点的直接原因不能用because!删除！因为环境问题在该市很突出。The citizens in Clearview believe Anne Green from Good Earth Coalition 删掉can solve the problem just because
she comes from Good Earth Coalition, a group related to Environmental protection.while another candidate Frank Braun from the current administration cannot do that.
这个不是居民的观点，是作者的观点，完全错误Obviously, that Anne Green is from the environmental protection group doesn’t necessarily mean he can effectively deal with pollution and he will be a good major who is not only able to ensure the environment quality but also to improve living conditions, so whether Anne Green is equipped with the ability of getting all the industries moving fluently and effectively is a question分析一个论一个，先论选安能解决环保问题因为她是环保组织成员。反驳能否解决环保问题不能看她从哪里来，更重要地要看重能力，有没有环保业绩。作者没有提到。还有即使她有环保业绩，那么她适合当市长吗？当市长不仅要保护环境，还要发展经济教育等，要的是他的协调各部门能力，她能担任吗？作者没有说，那么又怎么能说服居民投安的票呢？

Equally, Frank Braun cannot->改为should not get public support just because he is from the current government which has been said to lack environmental awareness. 下面就可以论即使当今政府缺乏环保意识，难道每一位成员都没有环保意识，怎么能以整体的消极否认个体的消极？整体的结果是多个个体合力的结果，说不定其他成员的意志掩盖了弗兰克的意志，说不定他很关注环境，也作出了业绩呢，投安票就对弗兰克不公平During the past year, the number of factories has been folded, the air pollution has become more severe and people treated in local hospital have had an increase in respiratory illnesses by 25%. Even if we were to blame the government, has Frank Braun really made no efforts in environment?
Maybe this is a puzzle.

As for the government’s unawareness of environmental issues, the data is worthy to be reconsidered.

下面论说到政府不保护环境，这些事实有问题。First, the new factories will not certainly be a source of pollution and maybe they are environment-friendly.应该说这些新工厂未必是污染源，看看这个词certainly用得，一用就是这些新工厂一定不是污染源了，意思错误。后面还要继续反驳，难道数量增长就一定说明空气污染是这些工厂导致的？其实应该先陈述作者的论据，然后再反驳 Second, the deterioration of air quality is not only caused by the pollution from the local city but also from other areas where the wind comes.先陈述作者的观点，再反驳 Third, the cases of respiratory illnesses increase possibly from born defects or aging and it cannot make it certain whether these cases are sure to be caused by pollution.
新工厂数量增多-à空气污染严重-à呼吸疾病患者增多
这个链怎么反驳呢？怎样反驳有效？显然前面是原因，后面是结果
所以1+2应该一块说，2+3应该一块说。不能单从数量上断定该工厂是否污染，要从排放量，排放物上判断。新工厂要是不是煤粉型的那么对空气危害不大；要是是环保友好型的就没得说，那么可能是邻区污染带来的；然后是导致病人增多，这个原因未必是空气污染造成的，还有流感等传播。都是从原因上下手，层层推进的。
The argument is not convincing. Whether Anne Green really will fulfill his duty and provide a better environment is not sure and there is not much evidence on whether the current government and its member Frank Braun are not concerned of the environment. The author needs to offer more information so that voters agree with his/her views.

总结还行。

总之，整篇文章没有把握好结构，论据不充分，最重要的要有总分总的概念，转折词的衔接，这都没有很好体现。语句结构不好，虽然没有多大语病，可是读起来很费劲。希望多看看优秀习作，模板，总结一些经典表达句式，提高整个文章的档次。