【10G10Hawk】小组8月4日任务——Argument7

谦行天下UID: 2797557

写文Argument7

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."

时间一天一天溜走，考试也一天一天逼近，我相信我们今天付出的一定有很大的收获，大家再接再厉！

请同学们按时交作业！按时参加互改！
第一次互改：后改前； 第二次互改：前改后
2-4-11-13-9-5-15-1-10-6

请每天往前翻两个帖子
每天有5篇文章的任务：
一篇作文，两篇一改文，两篇二改文（改别人和自改）晚11点交作业！过时不候！


8月5日准备写（BS自愿）

221"The chief benefit of the study of history is to break down the illusion that people in one period of time are significantly different from people who lived at any other time in history."

谦行天下UID: 2797557

WORDS: 527
TIME: 01:11:17
DATE: 2010/8/4 17:18:10

In this argument, the author gives some examples to prove that the current members do not effectively protect their environment. Despite some doubts exists in the evidence, the author contends that as Frank Braun (FB) is one of the town council and Ann Green (AG) is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, AG will solve the Clearview's environmental problems. The argument seems true at first glance, but the second examination reveals that it suffers from several logical flaws.

Firstly, whether the examples can prove that the current did not protect the environment is open to doubt. The author presents us three examples.

The first one is the doubled factories. Factories are impetus for economy and the government should take a balance between the number of factories and the protecting of the environment. It is aberrant for the government to put aside the development of economy and only consider the protection of the environment. If these factories didn't obey the environment regulation to pollute the environment, it is not reasonable to count the current. After all, it is possible that a proportion of factories doesn’t or slightly pollutes the environment.


The second example is about the increasing air pollution levels. Air pollution has no boundary, so I doubt whether the essence reason is the current council's policies. Pollutant generated by nearby place is easily spread in Clearview town and air pollution increase is a global phenomenon. The author needs to provide more detail data, like the percentage of air pollutant increased and comparison with other place.

The last example about the increasing patients with respiratory illnesses is doubtful, too. It is possible that these patients are working other places and come to this hospital to treat disease because the advanced facilities and expertise. It is also possible that the elder citizens, who are vulnerable to all kind of disease, in town are getting more and more. May be more and more people is addicted to smoking cigarette nowadays.

From the analysis above, we can conclude that the current members may have not overlooked the environmental problems. However, be a member of a group, the Good Earth Coalition or the Clearview town, does not mean the person has the same quality as the group. In other words, FB may be an environmentalist, and AG may not. Without providing evidence to support either one is environmentalist, we cannot reckon that he will pay attention to the environment when he is elected as the mayor.

What's more, to elect a mayor, people couldn’t only judge by one standard, that is whether or not he/she is an environmentalist. There are many more virtues of a person that we need to take into consider, such as the ability to be a leader, the moral and ethic standards, and so on. If the person only emphasize environment but omit other problems in the town, I doubt this one is the right.

All in all, the author's suggestion of voting for AG as the mayoral is untenable. To strengthen his statement, he needs provide the true virtues of AG as a mayor along with his concepts of protecting the environment. Without description of AG, the suggestion cannot convince readers.

=================第一次自改文=========================
To Maggie，已改显得跳跃的地方，谢谢
In this argument, the author gives some examples to prove that the current members do not effectively protect their environment. Despite some doubts exists in the evidence, the author contends that as Frank Braun is one of the town council and Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, ANN GREEN will solve the Clearview's environmental problems. The argument seems true at first glance, but the second examination reveals that it suffers from several logical flaws.

Firstly, the provided examples can not convince us that the current members did not protect the environment. The author presents us three examples. The first one is the doubled factories. The author did not provide any evidence that these factories pollute the environment. It is possible that the new factories doesn’t or slightly pollutes the environment. Maybe the factories properly dispose of waste. If these factories slightly effect the environment, it is not reasonable to count the current council.

The second example is about the increasing air pollution levels. Air pollution has no boundary, so I doubt whether the essence reason is the current council's policies. Pollutant generated by nearby place is easily spread to Clearview town and as air pollution increase is a global phenomenon, may be the data provided in a global phenomena. And the current members are trying to take measures to decline the air pollution. The author needs to provide more detail data to prove that the current council didn’t care about the environment, like the percentage of air pollutant increased and comparison with other place.

The last example about the increasing patients with respiratory illnesses is doubtful, too. It is possible that these patients are working in other places and come to this hospital to treat disease because the advanced facilities and expertise. It is also possible that the elder citizens, who are vulnerable to all kind of disease, in town are getting more and more. Or may be more and more people is addicted to smoking cigarette nowadays. All possibilities list above reveals that the increasing amount patients of respiratory illness can not prove that the environment is getting worse and the current members omit the protection of environment.

From the analysis above, we can reckon from the examples that the current members may have not overlooked the environmental problems. However, be a member of a group, the Good Earth Coalition or the Clearview town, does not mean the person has the same quality as the group. In other words, Frank Braun may be an environmentalist, and Ann Green may not. Without providing evidence to support either one is environmentalist, we cannot reckon that he will pay attention to the environment when he is elected as the mayor.

Even Ann Green is an environmentalist, people couldn’t only judge by one standard of electing a mayor, whether or not he/she is an environmentalist. There are many more virtues of a person that we need to take into consider, such as the ability to be a leader, the moral and ethic standards, and so on. If the person only emphasize environment but omit other problems in the town, I doubt this one is the right.

All in all, the author's suggestion of voting for ANN GREEN as the mayoral is untenable. To strengthen his statement, he needs provide the true virtues of ANN GREEN as a mayor along with his concepts of protecting the environment. Without description of ANN GREEN, the suggestion cannot convince readers.

=======================第二次自改文====================
In this argument, the author gives some examples to prove that the current members do not effectively protect their environment. Despite that some doubts exist in the evidence; the author contends that as Frank Braun is one of the town council and Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, ANN GREEN will solve the Clearview's environmental problems. The argument seems true at first glance, but the second examination reveals that it suffers from several logical flaws.

Firstly, the provided examples can not convince us that the current members have not protected the environment. The author presents us three examples. The first one is the doubled factories. The author did not provide any evidence that these factories pollute the environment. It is possible that the new factories doesn’t or slightly pollutes the environment. Maybe the factories properly dispose of waste. If these factories slightly effect the environment, it is not reasonable to count the current council.

The second example is about the increasing air pollution levels. Air pollution has no boundary, so I doubt whether the essence reason is the current council's policies. Pollutant generated by nearby place is easily spread to Clearview town and as air pollution increase is a global phenomenon, may be the data provided in a global phenomena. And the current members are trying to take measures to decline the air pollution. The author needs to provide more detail data to prove that the current council didn’t care about the environment, like the percentage of air pollutant increased and comparison with other place.

The last example about the increasing patients with respiratory illnesses is doubtful, too. It is possible that these patients are working in other places and come to this hospital to treat disease because the advanced facilities and expertise. It is also possible that the elder citizens, who are vulnerable to all kind of disease, in town are getting more and more. Or may be more and more people is addicted to smoking cigarette nowadays. All possibilities list above reveals that the increasing amount patients of respiratory illness can not prove that the environment is getting worse and the current members omit the protection of environment.

From the analysis above, we can reckon from the examples that the current members may have not overlooked the environmental problems. However, be a member of a group, the Good Earth Coalition or the Clearview town, does not mean the person has the same quality as the group. In other words, Frank Braun may be an environmentalist, and Ann Green may not. Without providing evidence to support either one is environmentalist, we cannot reckon that he will pay attention to the environment when he is elected as the mayor.

Even Ann Green is an environmentalist, people couldn’t only judge by one standard of electing a mayor, whether or not he/she is an environmentalist. There are many more virtues of a person that we need to take into consider, such as the ability to be a leader, the moral and ethic standards, and so on. If the person only emphasize environment but omit other problems in the town, I doubt this one is the right.

All in all, the author's suggestion of voting for ANN GREEN as the mayoral is untenable. To strengthen his statement, he needs provide the true virtues of ANN GREEN as a mayor along with his concepts of protecting the environment. Without description of ANN GREEN, the suggestion cannot convince readers.

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

Nowadays, the environment is a hot issue. In this letter, the author obviously put the environment protection in the first place in the work of a mayor, and ignored the whole responsibility of a qualified mayor. His argument seems well-reasoned, but after the analogy below we can find some flaws.

To begin with, the author pointed out that Ann Green, as a member of the Good Earth Coalition, given the mayoralty, will certainly solve the environmental problems in Clearview. There is no evidence to demonstrate that Ann Green being in the coalition had dedicated herself to the protection of the environment. Judging a person whether he or she has an active attitude toward the natural surroundings doesn’t depend on if he or she has a identification of some institution connected to the environment, but what concrete contributions the person has made to protect our earth. Thus, it is entirely possible that in the Clearview Town Council Frank Braun always tend to keep green, but opposed by other members.

Moreover, the examples given by the author are not persuasive. Firstly, the air pollution problem might be caused by other factors such as the increase of the number of the motor vehicles or the climate phenomenon, just like sand storm. Secondly, the respiratory ailment could also be in connection with the turning of the seasons, and as we all know, in this kind of period, the respiratory illness like cold and flu is apt to outbreak among people. Therefore, the conclusion drawn from the two examples that the members of the local council are not protecting the environment is unreasonable.

Finally, the author didn’t realize the meaning of being a mayor. If a mayor put all the money and effort upon the environment protection at the cost of the destroy of the economic construction, the residents will certainly suffer from the regression of the standard of living. The double of the number of the factories which increased the economic development in the city was also out of the consideration of the progress of the whole city. We can conclude that even if Ann Green has an active attitude toward the environment, taking the factors that will certainly influence the developing level of Clearview, she may probably take measures to set other factories in the city.

In summary, without more investigation of the achievement in the field of environment protection from the two candidates cannot the author come to the conclusion, and he or she is supposed see the balance between the green surroundings and the social development.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

一改：欢迎猛拍
In this letter, the author obviously put the environment protection in the first place in the work of a mayor, and ignored the whole responsibility of a qualified mayor. His argument seems well-reasoned, but after the analogy below we can find some flaws.

To begin with, the author pointed out that Ann Green, as a member of the Good Earth Coalition, given the mayoralty, will certainly solve the environmental problems in Clearview. There is no evidence to demonstrate that Ann Green being in the coalition had dedicated herself to the protection of the environment. Judging a person whether he or she has an active attitude toward the natural surroundings doesn’t depend on if he or she has a identification of some institution connected to the environment, but what concrete contributions the person has made to protect our earth. Thus, it is entirely possible that even if she becomes the mayor, she will not necessarily do the environment protection.

Moreover, the examples given by the author failed to persuade the readers that the current members are not protecting our environment. On one hand, there is no necessary relation between the air pollution and the past year the number of factories in Clearview. For example, the air problem might be caused by other factors such as the increase of the number of the motor vehicles or the climate phenomenon, just like sand storm. Another possibility is that additional factories are not the ones that will pollute the environment, and there is no detailed information given by the author proving the additional factories release a huge amount of harmful gas and pollute the nature in Clearview.

On the other hand, the mere fact that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory was not necessarily caused by the environment pollution. The respiratory ailment could also be in connection with the turning of the seasons, and as we all know, in this kind of period, the respiratory illness like cold and flu is apt to outbreak among people. Another example is that perhaps there has been an explosion of some kind of the infectious respiratory in Clearview last year, and the citizens suffered from it heavily. Therefore, the conclusion drawn from the two facts that the members of the local council are not protecting the environment is unreasonable.

In summary, without more investigation of the achievement in the field of environment protection from the two candidates cannot the author come to the conclusion, and he or she is supposed see the balance between the green surroundings and the social development.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改15号
建议修改
Not understand
good expression
comments

In this argument, the author recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election rather than Frank Braun. In order to make the recommendation convincing and compelling, he/she cites several evidences to bolster it, which involve the increasing of factories in Clearview, and respiratory illnesses have raised 25%. It appears plausible to achieve the conclusion at the first glance.

However, 我觉得呀，你在开头结尾把however, it suffers from several flaws,比这样逻辑上要通顺一点，不过是小问题the most conspicuous flaw is that the author decisively asserts if they elect Ann Green the environmental problems will be solved. Although Ann is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, there is no evidence to indicate that Ann will dedicate to solve the city's air pollution or Ann[delete] whether Ann is qualified in solving these problems still open to doubt[不如删了，or连接两个宾语]. Because there are many relations should be adjusted before solving the environmental problems, and Ann should acquaint with industry production as well, the author has not provided whether Ann has these capacities, so the conclusion is not convincing.
攻击了主要错误点！
Furthermore, it is mentioned in the argument that the number of factories have doubled during the past. But he/she fails to provide what do these factories mainly produce,我觉得你这句应该跟前面“连”成一个复合句而不是后面 it is likely that they don't emit any dirty and poisonous air at all, for example they are electronic factories解释一下吧！求真相. In addition, the author fails to provide whether these factories have deal with air pollution, and whether the air pollution can be ascribed to them. Perhaps, they have deal with the pollution very well, or the dirty air is produced by other nearby cities rather than the local factories, and it has been brought to their city by winds. It is, therefore, reasonable for the author to make clear these problems before coming to the conclusion.
攻击工厂，很流畅！
Again, are the illnesses caused by air pollution? As we all know, many reasons can contribute to respiratory illness, such as genetic factors前面那个词是形容词 and climate. The author should provide more strong statistics about what results in it, and the sex, age and other physical status of the illnesses are have not be provided, it is possible many of them are old persons, and their illnesses do not result from air pollution.
攻击呼吸病的来源
In sum, it is kind the author[ for the author to] dedicate to help the residents to improve healthy. And[delete] his/her recommendation seems to be rational at the first glance, but more strong statistic and other possible factors, such as whether Ann is the best candidate to solve the pollution and serve as the position, as well as what is primarily accounted for the environmental problem, etc should be well reasoned.

================改Maggie的一改文=======================
建议修改
Not understand
good expression
comments

The arguer recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election by occasion that the current members of the Clearview town council are not protecting the environment. To justify his assertion, he provides a serious of examples. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, see from these examples the author has provided, what we know is that air pollution levels have increased and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients,题目中并没有说这两者有联系，这两个题目中用and链接，是并列关系 but there is no evidences to show the necessary connection between these two things. It is possible that these patients are working other places and come to this hospital to treat disease. Or people got respiratory illnesses may due to their careless diet habit like eating unclean food and so on. And it may also due to the infection between citizens that once a person gets it serious which may probably infect plenty of people. After all, respiratory illness is a complex illness which has a great deal of kinds of pathogens. （题目中的推导关系式more patients——到， 政府不重视环境）And as to the number of factories' doubling and the air pollution levels' increasing, we have no idea is there any relationship between these two. The way for air pollution levels' increasing is not simply based on one. Such as pollutant may probably be generated by nearby place which can easily spread in C town and then air pollution increase became a global phenomenon. Automobile emissions exhausting can also contribute to the increase of the air pollution levels as well and the like.（总结一下你举的例子为了说明什么）

Given that the number of patients with respiratory illnesses turned larger was relevant to the air pollution levels' increased and the air pollution level' increased was relevant to the number of factories' doubled我不认为题目中指出了这两者之间的关系, it doesn't mean that the members of C town council are not protecting our environment. What we don't know is what the government has done to protect the environment. The number of factories doubled, but the government may have done some protection measures to prevent them from polluting, and government may also have made a number of environmental improvement measures after pollution. What's more, the speaker just sees the shortages building up factories would bring but doesn't see the benefits if under a circumstance that the shortages could be solved. After all, environment is just one part of the whole policies of government, economics, crime rate are all the jobs of government.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition will do something to protect the city's environment. We know nothing about this person's background. She may just an administrative assistant who don't make decision about air protecting at all in the institution. She may also not have got the ability to administer a whole city. What' more, she may not a responsible person at all. In addition, looking after environment isn't the only job for a mayor. The institution of Good Earth Coalition may specialize in treating environment, but people in this institution probably have no idea about administering a whole city. Chances are that the environmental quality levels up after Ann Green becomes the mayor but many other problems come up. In this case, to choose a member of Good Earth Coalition would get more kicks than half pence.

To sum, the editorial is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more connections between the evens and the consequences we found out. Otherwise, the arguer should also consider all the things a mayor should preside over.

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

"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."
WORDS: 534
TIME: 00:38:38
DATE: 2010/8/4 11:20:57

The arguer recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election by occasion that the current members of the Clearview town council are not protecting the environment. To justify his assertion, he provides a serious of examples. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, see from these examples the author has provided, what we know is that air pollution levels have increased and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients, but there is no evidences to show the necessary connection between these two things. People got respiratory illnesses may due to their careless diet habit like eating unclean food and so on. And it may also due to the infection between citizens that once a person gets it serious, it may probably infect plenty of people. After all, respiratory illness is a complex illness which has a great deal of kinds of pathogens. And as to the number of factories' doubling and the air pollution levels' increasing, we have no idea is there any relationship between these two. The way for air pollution levels' increasing is not simply based on one.
Automobile emissions exhausting can contribute to the increase of the air pollution levels as well.

Given that the number of patients with respiratory illnesses turned larger was relevant to the air pollution levels' increased and the air pollution level' increased was relevant to the number of factories' doubled, it doesn't mean that the members of Clearview town council are not protecting our environment. What we don't know is what the government has done to protect the environment. The number of factories doubled, but the government may have done some protection measures to prevent them from polluting, and government may also have made a number of environmental improvement measures after pollution. What's more, the speaker just sees the shortages building up factories would bring but doesn't see the benefits. After all, environment is just one part of the whole policies of government, economics, crime rate are all the jobs of government.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that Ann Green, who is a member of the good Earth Coalition will do something to protect the city's environment. We know nothing about this person's background. She may just a administrative assistant who don't make decision about air protecting at all in the institution. She may also not have got the ability to administer a whole city. What' more, she may not a responsible person at all. In addition, looking after environment isn't the only job for a mayor. The institution of Good Earth Coalition may specialize in treating environment, but people in this institution probably have no idea about administering a whole city. Chances are that the environmental quality levels up after Ann Green becomes the mayor but many other problems come up. In this case, to choose a member of Good Earth Coalition would get more kicks than half pence.

To sum, the editorial is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more connections between the evens and the consequences we found out. Otherwise, the arguer should also consider all the things a mayor should preside over.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
第一次自改：
The arguer recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election by occasion that the current members of the Clearview town council are not protecting the environment. To justify his assertion, he provides a serious of examples. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, see from these examples the author has provided, what we know is that air pollution levels have increased and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients, but there is no evidences to show the necessary connection between these two things. It is possible that these patients are working other places and come to this hospital to treat disease. Or people got respiratory illnesses may due to their careless diet habit like eating unclean food and so on. And it may also due to the infection between citizens that once a person gets it serious which may probably infect plenty of people. After all, respiratory illness is a complex illness which has a great deal of kinds of pathogens. And as to the number of factories' doubling and the air pollution levels' increasing, we have no idea is there any relationship between these two. The way for air pollution levels' increasing is not simply based on one. Such as pollutant may probably be generated by nearby place which can easily spread in C town and then air pollution increase became a global phenomenon. Automobile emissions exhausting can also contribute to the increase of the air pollution levels as well and the like.

Given that the number of patients with respiratory illnesses turned larger was relevant to the air pollution levels' increased and the air pollution level' increased was relevant to the number of factories' doubled, it doesn't mean that the members of C town council are not protecting our environment. What we don't know is what the government has done to protect the environment. The number of factories doubled, but the government may have done some protection measures to prevent them from polluting, and government may also have made a number of environmental improvement measures after pollution. What's more, the speaker just sees the shortages building up factories would bring but doesn't see the benefits if under a circumstance that the shortages could be solved. After all, environment is just one part of the whole policies of government, economics, crime rate are all the jobs of government.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition will do something to protect the city's environment. We know nothing about this person's background. She may just an administrative assistant who don't make decision about air protecting at all in the institution. She may also not have got the ability to administer a whole city. What' more, she may not a responsible person at all. In addition, looking after environment isn't the only job for a mayor. The institution of Good Earth Coalition may specialize in treating environment, but people in this institution probably have no idea about administering a whole city. Chances are that the environmental quality levels up after Ann Green becomes the mayor but many other problems come up. In this case, to choose a member of Good Earth Coalition would get more kicks than half pence.

To sum, the editorial is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more connections between the evens and the consequences we found out. Otherwise, the arguer should also consider all the things a mayor should preside over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
第二次自改：
The arguer recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election by occasion that the current members of the Clearview town council are not protecting the environment. To justify his assertion, he provides a serious of examples. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, see from these examples the author has provided, what we know is some consequences that the number of factories has doubled, air pollution levels have increased and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients, but there is no evidences to show the necessary connection between not treating environment well and these examples. The way for air pollution levels' increasing is not simply based on one factor. Such as pollutant may probably be generated by nearby place which can easily spread in C town and then air pollution increase became a global phenomenon. Automobile emissions exhausting can also contribute to the increase of the air pollution levels as well and the like. Also it is possible that these patients are working other places and come to this hospital to treat disease. Or people got respiratory illnesses may due to their careless diet habit like eating unclean food and so on. And it may also due to the infection between citizens that once a person gets it serious which may probably infect plenty of people. After all, respiratory illness is a complex illness which has a great deal of kinds of pathogens. And as to the number of factories' doubling and the air pollution levels' increasing, the factories may be environment friendly presumably.

Given that the number of patients with respiratory illnesses turned larger, the air pollution levels' increased and the air pollution level' increased and factories' doubled are all relevant to the environment’s not being taken care of, it doesn't mean that the members of C town council are not protecting our environment. What we don't know is what the government has done to protect the environment. The number of factories doubled, but the government may have done some protection measures to prevent them from polluting, and government may also have made a number of environmental improvement measures after pollution. What's more, the speaker just sees the shortages building up factories would bring but doesn't see the benefits if under a circumstance that the shortages could be solved. After all, environment is just one part of the whole policies of government, economics, crime rate are all the jobs of government.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition will do something to protect the city's environment. We know nothing about this person's background. She may just an administrative assistant who don't make decision about air protecting at all in the institution. She may also not have got the ability to administer a whole city. What' more, she may not a responsible person at all. In addition, looking after environment isn't the only job for a mayor. The institution of Good Earth Coalition may specialize in treating environment, but people in this institution probably have no idea about administering a whole city. Chances are that the environmental quality levels up after Ann Green becomes the mayor but many other problems come up. In this case, to choose a member of Good Earth Coalition would get more kicks than half pence.

To sum, the editorial is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must provide more connections between the evens and the consequences we found out. Otherwise, the arguer should also consider all the things a mayor should preside over.

hwslqcUID: 2861597

TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - 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."
WORDS: 534
TIME: 00:30:58
DATE: 2010-8-2 0:31:00

The notion that we should vote for Ann Green(AG) seems to be sound and convincing at the first glance. After all, he is a member of the Good earth Coalition(GEC), the number of factories in Clearview(C)
has doubles, and
the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. However, close scrutiny of each of these evidence reveals than none of them lend credible support to the recommendation. The reason are stated as below.

First of all, the arguer judged the pollution levels have increased from the phenomena that the number of factories has doubled and he local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses, which is doubtable. As the arguer does not provide any information about the factories, chances are that even the total number of factories has doubled, the pollution caused by each of them is decreased more than half, which means the total pollution has also decreased at the same time. And the 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses can not lead to the conclusion either. We do not know whether the population in P increased more than 25 percent. If so, the people with respiratory illnesses only provide evidence to show the pollution level in C decreased. Or maybe such increase of the number of people with respiratory illnesses is because the people today focus on the health problem that overlooked by them, which means they may caught the illness but do not go to hospital to treated it. Unless the arguer can ruling out all the possibilities I mentioned above, the mid-conclusion that the popllution levels increased is undermined.

Even if the pollution levels have increased, which is of course an unwarranted assumption, whether AG can solve the problem is unknown. It is true that he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. However, it is not strong enough to his abilities to solves problems like that. If he is just take part in such coalition but did not do any contribution or successfully solve a case while Frank Braun(FB) have already worked out several complicated pollution problems , the conclusion will become that if people in C elect AG, the environmental problems in C will certainly not be solved.

Furthermore, granted that AG can solve environment problems better than FB, it can not support the conclusion. Which candidate to vote is not only based on the abilities to solve environment problems. Otherwise every America president candidate would just need to provide how they can solve those pollutions around the world, which is definitely not the truth. We have to test the candidate from all aspects, like the abilities to stimulate the economic, the power to run the programs, the reputation is the whole society and so on.

To sum up, after pointing out so many flaws in the argument, now we can say that all these evidence can not be used to support the recommendation. Maybe the people in C should vote AG, but before make such recommendation, the arguer have to provide more persuasive, practical and professional research and survey like the facts to show their abilities to solve different problems or the evidence to prove AG a better leader than FB.
==============================================================================================================================================
一改文
The notion that we should vote for Ann Green(AG) in the next mayoral election seems to be sound and convincing at the first glance. After all, AG is a member of the Good earth Coalition(GEC), the number of factories in Clearview(C) has doubles, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. However, close scrutiny of each of these evidences reveals than none of them lend credible support to the recommendation. The reasons are stated as below.

First of all, the arguer judged the pollution levels have increased from the phenomena that the number of factories has doubled and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses, which are doubtable. As the arguer does not provide any information about the factories, chances are that even the total number of factories has doubled, the pollution caused by each of them is decreased more than half, which means the total pollution has also decreased at the same time. And the 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses can not lead to the conclusion either. We do not know whether the population in P increased more than 25 percent. If so, the people with respiratory illnesses only provide evidence to show the pollution level in C decreased. Or maybe such increase of the number of people with respiratory illnesses is because the people today focus on the health problem that were overlooked by them, which indicates they may caught the illness but do not go to hospital to treated it. Unless the arguer can ruling out all the possibilities I mentioned above, the mid-conclusion that the pollution levels increased is undermined.

Even if the pollution levels have increased, which is of course an unwarranted assumption, whether AG can solve the problem is unknown. It is true that he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. However, it is not strong enough to his abilities to solve problems like that. If he is just take part in such coalition but did not do any contribution or successfully solve a case while Frank Braun(FB) have already worked out several complicated pollution problems , the conclusion will become that if people in C elect AG, the environmental problems in C will certainly not be solved.

Furthermore, granted that AG can solve environment problems better than FB, it can not support the conclusion. Which candidate to vote is not only based on the abilities to solve environment problems. Otherwise every America president candidate would just need to prove how they can solve those pollutions around the world, which is definitely not the truth. We have to test the candidate from all aspects, like the abilities to stimulate the economic; the power to run the programs; the reputation is the whole society and so on.

To sum up, after pointing out so many flaws in the argument, now we can say that all these evidence can not be used to support the recommendation. Maybe the people in C should vote AG, but before make such recommendation, the arguer have to provide more persuasive, practical and professional research and survey like the facts to show their abilities to solve different problems or the evidence to prove AG can lead Clearview into a better future than FB.

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

改【1】

In this argument, the author gives some examples to prove that the current members do not effectively protect their environment. Despite some doubts exists in the evidence, the author contends that as Frank Braun (FB) is one of the town council and Ann Green (AG) is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, AG will solve the Clearview's environmental problems. The argument seems true at first glance, but the second examination reveals that it suffers from several logical flaws.
Firstly, whether the examples can prove that the current did not protect the environment（这边主语有问题，保护环境是政府（人）在做的事情，不是current在做的事情） is open to doubt（这边谓语有点矛盾，应该是environment open to doubt或是is opened to doubt）. The author presents us three examples. The first one is the doubled factories. Factories are impetus for economy and the government should take a balance between the number of factories and the protecting of the environment. It is aberrant for the government to put aside the development of economy and only consider the protection of the environment. If these factories didn't obey the environment regulation to pollute the environment, it is not reasonable to count the current. After all, it is possible that a proportion of factories doesn’t or slightly pollutes the environment.

The second example is about the increasing air pollution levels. Air pollution has no boundary, so I doubt whether the essence reason is the current council's policies. Pollutant generated by nearby place is easily spread in Clearview town and air pollution increase is a global phenomenon. （Factors太少了，你只举了一种可能性，这样是远远不够convincing的，至少要再加两个factors）The author needs to provide more detail data, like the percentage of air pollutant increased and comparison with other place.
The last example about the increasing patients with respiratory illnesses is doubtful, too. It is possible that these patients are working （in）other places and come to this hospital to treat disease because the advanced facilities and expertise. It is also possible that the elder citizens, who are vulnerable to all kind of disease, in town are getting more and more. May be more and more people is addicted to smoking cigarette nowadays.
From the analysis above, we can conclude that the current members may have not overlooked the environmental problems. However, be a member of a group, the Good Earth Coalition or the Clearview town, does not mean the person has the same quality as the group. In other words, FB may be an environmentalist, and AG may not. Without providing evidence to support either one is environmentalist, we cannot reckon that he will pay attention to the environment when he is elected as the mayor.
What's more, to elect a mayor, people couldn’t only judge by one standard, that is whether or not he/she is an environmentalist. There are many more virtues of a person that we need to take into consider, such as the ability to be a leader, the moral and ethic standards, and so on. If the person only emphasize environment but omit other problems in the town, I doubt this one is the right.（上一段应该和这一段并在一起，因为上一段并不能成为一个论点，它其实是这一段里的一个论据，用来论证这一段观点的，当然要稍作修改再并在一起。以个人情况来作为一个论据，如你所说的AG是不是一个环境主义者）
All in all, the author's suggestion of voting for AG as the mayoral is untenable. To strengthen his statement, he needs provide the true virtues of AG as a mayor along with his concepts of protecting the environment. Without description of AG, the suggestion cannot convince readers.

整个逻辑结构不是很好，看上去正文有很多段，其实很多只是在讲同一个问题或是同一条主线，没有一种循序渐进的感觉，逻辑错误也是分先后的。其实在文中你的一些关于逻辑错误的想法是挺好的，但是没有一个整体的规划，就会觉得看的人跟着你一会儿跳到了这里，一会儿跳到了那里。还有一点就是这个时间可能得开始稍微控制一下了吧。有问题的话QQ~

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
改【6】

In this argument, the author asserts that we should elect Ann Green(AG) to solving the environmental problems in C because she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. To espouse these conclusions, the author lists the fact that during the past year the factories in C has doubled and air pollution levels have increased. Furthermore, author concludes that the there are more patients with respiratory illnesses in the hospital.  From my perspective, none of these facts is well supported by cogent premises and reasonable demonstration.

Fundamentally, the main mistake is that there is no evidence about the relationship between in factories and air pollution. 题目中完全没有把这两个例子联系在一起，题目用的是and，这种联系是你自己假设的。First, the air pollution maybe is caused by the near area. For example, perhaps there is a volcano which has erupted last year near the C in the past year. This may cause Amount of ash was in the air and all the areas nearby were polluted. Second, the number of factories in C probably are some kinds of factories which only making the clothing and food. Since this relationship is unsubstantiated, let alone about the cause of the environmental problems.

Moreover, the author uses a mere fact to generalize wide situation. There are many kinds of respiratory illnesses in the world. The reason why patients have increased is maybe because a kind of infection was spread in the C. SARS is a best example, so many people were suffered in the horrible disease and the patients have doubled even triple than normal. Can we say the reason the reason for the increase of the patients is air pollution? The answer is not. So we cannot mere consider that the only reason for more patients is the air pollution.同样，题目中也没有说more patients is caused by the air pollution.题目这两个例子之间用的是and，这种联系是你自己建立的，而作者没有建立这种联系，你的攻击是无效的。

Even assuming the reason of environment problem is the factories as well, it still has another fallacy that weakens in this argument. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence to support that AG is an environmentalist. Maybe she just enjoying in protecting the animal and plant. As a common sense, every decision was made from all the whole government instead of the residents, her decision is useless. 再多加个factor吧

In a nutshell, I have analyzed so many flaws in the argument. In my opinion, the argument should reason more convincingly. So if I were the author I would account the evidence such as which the policy that Ann Green was carried out to make the argument more cogent ,while the evidence about only reason for air pollution is the factories also needs to be supported.
论点稍微少了，事实上正文第一段与第二段，虽然分为两段，但攻击的本质是一样的，所以最好再加个论点，使驳斥更强有力一点。

hwslqcUID: 2861597

改aus

In this letter, the author recommends that people in Clearview should vote for Ann Green who is from Good Earth Coalition instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearviw town council because Frank Braun did not protect the environment during the tenure in the town council. To support this recommendation, the author cites that the number of factories in Clearviw has double and 25 percent more people get respiratory illness. However, this argument suffers from several logical flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands.
To begin with, the mere fact that the factories in Clearview are twice as many as that of one year before lends no support that the environment in Clearviw is deteriorating. Perhaps these factories are quite environmental friendly and are not releasing dangerous chemicals into the environmental at all. Without providing more information about the whole manufacturing process of these factories, it is unjustifiable for the author to conclude that the pollution level has increased solely based on the doubled number of the factories.
In addition, the fact that the local hospital treated 25 more patients（是多了百分之25，而不是25个人）
with respiratory illness proves nothing about that the air pollution has aggravated. It is entirely possible that many people in Clearviw have already suffered from respiratory illness for quite a long time, but their symptoms are not serious so they decided not to go to see the doctor until last year they raised their health awareness and started to seek treatment in the hospital. For that matter（后文是另一个可能，这里不能用for that matter 吧）, it is quite possible that many patients treated in the hospital were from other places and they had respiratory problems before they came to Clearview. Both scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the argument greatly.
Even granted that the air pollution is indeed getting worse, the author unfairly assumes that Frank Braun is responsible for it. Since we are not informed Frank Braun's role in the town council, perhaps Frank Braun is in charge of the educational matters rather than the environmental or economic issues.（题目貌似说了是市长选举，市长肯定要对所有事情负责的。） And the air pollution has nothing to do with him. Without consider this possibility, the author cannot persuade the voters not to vote for Frank Braun.
Finally yet importantly, the author unjustifiably concludes that Ann Green would solve all the environmental problems if elected. However, little evidences are given except that Ann Green was from Good Earth Coalition. Without more information about Ann Green and the Good Earth Coalition, it is unwise for the voters to vote for Ann Green.
To sum up, the author's claim that residents should vote for Ann Green is not well supported. To bolster the conclusion, the author should provide adequate evidence to show that the environment is indeed worsening in Clearview and Frank Braun should be blamed for it. Also, I need more information about Ann Green and her organization to judge whether she could tackle the environmental problems.
=====================================================================================================================================
In this argument, the arguer concludes that voters should vote for Ann Green【在什么选举中vote for AG？最好写出来】, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, instead of Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, and then the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved. First because our environment are not be protected by the current members. 【这个是作者的一个声明，然后用后面的例子来证明这个声明。你把这个声明和例子并列我觉得可能不太合适。】In addition, the arguer cites some examples happened during the past year. Plausible as it may seem, I am afraid that the argument can hardly bear further examination since there are several flaws in it.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that if residents of Clearview replace the current mayor【没说是FB是现在的CM】, Frank Braun(F), with Ann Green[A], the environment will be solved definitely, while provides little evidence to support this assumption. As a mayor, he needs to do many things to solve the environment problems by no means just one of the Good Earth Coalition can qualify. For example, collecting concrete information about factories, and coordinate with all departments to discuss the urban macro environmental planning【没发现这句话的主语，word难怪报错】. We are in the absence of what about the data of A in other aspects. In any events, the arguer cannot straightly assume that concern about the environmental protection is the only reason available for voting.【本段开头句和后半段以及结尾句论述的不是一个东西。最好统一一下】

Next, the examples about the current members are not protecting our environment lend little support to the argument. First, the arguer focus on the number of factories had doubled, while the arguer fails to justify whether the new factories are polluting or they have not taken measures to prevent pollution. Without such information we can not determine the impact of these factories for the degree of environmental pollution, since it is possible that these factories are less polluting new industries and took effective measures. Second, talking about the air pollution problem, the result that air pollution levels have increased was a global situation, the arguer should supply the convinced comparison between Clearview and other cities, or now with the earlier history. However, the air pollution is not necessarily caused by Clearview itself, it is likely that due to the wind, pollution may come from other places. Third, the arguer cannot confidently conclude that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses is the result of environment .Respiratory diseases occurs for many reasons, natural or aging.

Finally, even if the current government really did not care about the environment as the argument concluded, the arguer unfairly equates these behaviors【什么行为？】 with Frank Braun, while does not mention a word about whether he has been promoting measures that polluted the environment. It is highly possible that Frank Braun was concerned about the environment, but his voice was drowned by others who were opposed to him. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the credibility of the author's conclusion.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better substantiate it, the arguer has to provide actual reason or reasons for the candidates to address environmental issues and capacity results, and how the present government as well as Frank Braun do not care about the environment.

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

改MJG~

建议修改
good expression
comments

题目：ARGUMENT7 - 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."
字数：417          用时：00:39:24          日期：2010-8-4 22:10:23

In this argument, the author asserts that we should elect Ann Green(AG) to solving the environmental problems in Clearview because she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. To espouse these conclusions, the author assumes[assume后面的内容都是事实，所以assume改成list the face  that] during the past year the factories in Clearview has doubled and air pollution levels have increased. Furthermore, author concludes that the there are more patients with respiratory illnesses in the hospital. 【这个也属于事实，不是作者的结论】From my perspective, none of these assertions 【改成facts】 is well supported by cogent premises and reasonable demonstration.【我觉得这里应该是，这些事实都不能支持作者的结论，你的观点好像跟我的想法是反的，你再看看】

Fundamentally, the main mistake is that there is no evidence about the relationship between in factories and air pollution. First, the air pollution maybe is caused by the near area. For example,【 加上perhaps】 there is a volcano near the Clearview and the volcano was erupted【改成，there is a volcano which has erupted last year near the Clearview,这样句子更简洁一些】 in the past year. [加上This may cause]Amount of ash was in the air and all the areas nearby were polluted. Second, the number of factories in Clearview probably are some kinds of factories which only making the clothing and food. Since this relationship is unsubstantiated, let alone about the cause of the environmental problems.
该段攻击工厂和空气污染没有直接联系

Moreover, the author uses a mere fact to generalize wide situation. There are many kinds of respiratory illnesses in the world. The reason why patients have increased is maybe because a kind of infection was spread in the Clearview. SARS is a best example, so many people were suffered in the horrible disease and the patients have doubled even triple than normal. Can we say the reason of many patients 【改，The reason for the increase of the patients】is air pollution? The answer is not. So we cannot mere consider that the only reason for more patients is the air pollution.
该段攻击呼吸道疾病病人增多并不仅仅是因为空气污染

Even assuming the reason of environment problem is the factories as well, it still has another fallacy that weakens in this argument. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence to support that AG is an environmentalist. Maybe she just enjoying in protecting the animal and plant. And even she is an environmentalist. 【这句话放在这里有什么作用？】As a common sense, every decision was made from all the whole government in stand of 【貌似没有in stand of这个词组，你是想写，instead of 吗？】the residents, her decision is useless.
该段攻击AG也不一定是环保主义者

In a nutshell【哈哈，你很喜欢用这个句型啊good~】, I have analyzed so many flaws in the argument. In my opinion, the argument should reason more convincingly. So if I were the author I would account the evidence such as which the policy that Ann Green was devoted【devote the policy这样搭配不对，改成carry out】 to make the argument more cogent ,while the evidence about only reason for air pollution is the factories also needs to be supported.【我还是认为evidence 是不能被support的，证据是用来论证结论的】
建议哦：
题目里的结论是，我们不能选FB我们要选AG，因为FB没有保护好我们的环境，而AG是一个环保组织者。所以，我们要辩驳的有两方面，一是FB并不一定没有做好环保工作，二是即使AG当上了市长，也不一定能保护好我们的环境。在你的文章里，一地方面没有提到FB的作用，也就是第一个第二个分论点，都没提到FB，一定要写上因为这些证据并不能说明是FB的没有做好环保工作，也就没有理由把FB换掉。另一方面，你写了第三个分论点，但是你没有写到关键，你只写了，她不一定是环保主义者，关键是，即使是环保主义者，她做了市长也不一定能在环保上起到什么作用。~~
你看看还有啥问题不？？

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
改agnes

建议修改
good expression
comments
删除
The arguer asserts that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, as their next mayor instead of Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council. The arguer claims that only because the current members in the town council are not devoting to environmental protection.（这句没要表达的意思没明白）Though the arguer sited several evidence to support his/her solution, careful investigation into this statements will expose the logical flaws lying in it.

First of all, the arguer claims that it is the current members not Frank Braun alone that are not protecting environment. Yet, only because Frank Braun works in the town council, the arguer considers him not to protect environment, which is hasty to a large extent. Since the arguer has not given any evidence that all the members including Frank are not have the sense of environmental protection or what Frank exactly did to harm the environment, it is hard for readers to reach the agreement that Frank Braun can not be the protential mayor.攻击“即使市委会没有保护环境，不代表FB没有保护环境”。我觉得这个事实攻击力不强，放在第一点的最好是攻击力最强的一点。主要还是说作者罗列的几个事实，并不能说明市委会没有在保护环境，然后再说，即使市委会真的没有保护环境，也不能推得FB没有保护环境，也就是你的第三个分论点，可以放到前面来！）

In addition, even if Frank did do something bad to environmental protection, a problem still exists because the arguer only provides the clue of the disadvantages of Frank while never attesting Ann is good in everything. Just with the evidence given above, the readers can hardly rule out the possibility that Ann Green, though working for the Good Earth Coalition, can still not apply the conception of protecting environment into practice.表达好。（这句话后面要加上加上其他的可能性，例如Perhaps Ann Green...要举出其他的可能性例子才是argument分析的关键）The arguer fails to give powerful evidence to compare Ane with Frank, thus making his assertion that residents will vote for Ann rather than Frank unconvincing and unpersuasive.本段攻击，作者并没有给出足够的证据证明，AG以后真的会做出环保行动。

What's more, The arguer lists several evidence that the environment situation in the town is worse than before in order to show how unconciouse Frank（写全名吧，XDF老师说不要写缩写，还是保险点好） and the town council are. However, none of the evidences can directly and perfectly prove the sin of Frank. The arguer sited that the number of factories has doubled while perhaps all of these factories never release any polluted water or gas; the arguer claims that air pollution levels have increased while perhaps the severe air pollution in other towns has expanded to the local town and worsen the local enviornment; the arguer speakes that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illness while perhaps the most of the patients are suffering from flus caused by the local changeable climate. Without providing the direct evidence, it is ex parte for the arguer to make such assertion.（连着三个事实的反驳，让人耳目一新，挺有新意的~但最后的总结句不是很好，一定要和FB和市委会的政策连起来再说一下，这些事实完全不能说明FB和当前市委会没有保护好环境）

Last but not least, even if all the evidence provided above can well support the assertion that Frank Braun and the council members are not protecting the environment, it is still unrational to make a conclusion that electing Ann Green can solve all the environmental problems. The arguer fails to attest the ability of Ann Green to show how great she can do to protect environment or how well she can serve as a mayor. All the arguer gives is that the rival of Ann Green fails to do well, which alone can not make any sense to conclude that Ann can solve all the problems. The arguer is so hasty that he/she never thinks about the protential problems aroused when Ann is selected as the mayor.这段和第二段有点重复了

In Sum, there are so many flaws lying in the arguments. In order to attest the arguer's assertion, it is advisable to give more information of what Ann and Frank done in the environmental protecion and compare them to draw a conclusion. Further research will be essential.
Agnes的文章很流畅，读起来很顺~~谬误分析上关于其他事实的列举还不是很到位，其他没什么问题哈！

谦行天下UID: 2797557

4# 谦行天下  
2~哈哈~谦！我抢了你的凳子！！！
ROse_Mary 发表于 2010-8-3 20:18

:lol 挤到地板上去了

czlilacUID: 2842584

TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - 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."
WORDS: 412
TIME: 00:31:53
DATE: 2010-8-4 15:13:21

In this argument, the author recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election rather than Frank Braun. In order to make the recommendation convincing and compelling, he/she cites several evidences to bolster it, which involve the increasing of factories in Clearview, and respiratory illnesses have raised 25%. It appears plausible to achieve the conclusion at the first glance.

However, the most conspicuous flaw is that the author decisively asserts if they elect Ann Green the environmental problems will be solved. Although Ann is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, there is no evidence to indicate that Ann will dedicate to solve the city's air pollution or Ann whether Ann is qualified in solving these problems still open to doubt. Because there are many relations should be adjusted before solving the problems, and Ann should acquaint with industry production as well, the author has not provided whether Ann has these capacities, so the conclusion is not convincing.

Furthermore, it is mentioned in the argument that the factories have doubled during the past. But he/she fails to provide what do these factories mainly produce, it is likely that they don't emit any dirty and poisonous air at all, for example they are electronic factories. In addition, the author fails to provide whether these factories have deal with air pollution, and whether the air pollution can be ascribed to them. Perhaps, they have deal with the pollution very well, or the dirty air is produced by other nearby cities rather than the local factories, and it has been brought to their city by winds. It is, therefore, reasonable for the author to make clear these problems before coming to the conclusion.

Again, are the illnesses caused by air pollution? As we all know, many reasons can contribute to respiratory illness, such as genetic and climate. The author should provide more strong statistics about what results in it, and the sex, age and other physical status of the illnesses are have not be provided, it is possible many of them are old persons, and their illnesses do not result from air pollution.

In sum, it is kind the author dedicate to help the residents to improve healthy. And his/her recommendation seems to be rational at the first glance, but more strong statistic and other possible factors, such as whether Ann is the best candidate to solve the pollution and serve as the position, as well as what is primarily accounted for the environmental problem, etc should be well reasoned.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------1改--------------------------------------


In this argument, the author recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election rather than Frank Braun. In order to make the recommendation convincing and compelling, he/she cites several evidences to bolster it, which involve the increasing of factories in Clearview, and respiratory illnesses have raised 25%. It appears plausible to achieve the conclusion at the first glance, while several persuasive statistics should be covered as well.


The most conspicuous flaw is that the author decisively asserts if they elect Ann Green the environmental problems will be solved. Although Ann is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, there is no evidence to indicate that Ann will dedicate to solve the city's air pollution or whether Ann is qualified in solving these problems . Because there are many relations should be adjusted before solving the environmental problems, and Ann should acquaint with industry production as well, the author has not provided whether Ann has these capacities, so the conclusion is not convincing.

Furthermore, it is mentioned in the argument that the number of factories have doubled during the past. However, he/she fails to provide what do these factories mainly produce, it is likely that they don't emit any dirty and poisonous air at all, for example they are electronic factories, which just process the electronic productions, such as cell phone and PDA, never discharging dirty air at all. In addition, the author fails to provide whether these factories have deal with air pollution, and whether the air pollution can be ascribed to them. Perhaps, they have deal with the pollution very well, or the dirty air is produced by other nearby cities rather than the local factories, and it has been brought to their city by winds. It is, therefore, reasonable for the author to make clear these problems before coming to the conclusion.

Again, are the illnesses caused by air pollution? As we all know, many reasons can contribute to respiratory illness, such as genetic factors
and climatic condition. The author should provide more strong statistics about what results in it, meanwhile, the sex, age and other physical status of the illnesses have not be provided as well, it is possible many of them are old persons, and their illnesses do not result from air pollution, but rather the aging of their respiratory system.

In sum, it is kind for the author to dedicate to help the residents to improve healthy.
His/Her recommendation seems to be rational at the first glance, but more strong statistic and other possible factors, such as whether Ann is the best candidate to solve the pollution and serve as the position, as well as what is primarily accounted for the environmental problem, etc should be well reasoned.

czlilacUID: 2842584

In this argument, the arguer concludes that voters should vote for Ann Green,a member of the Good Earth Coalition, instead of Frank Braun,a member of the Clearview town council, and then the enviromental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved. First because our environment are not be protected by the current members. In addition, the arguer cites some examples happened during the past year. Plausible as it may seem(be seemed), I am afraid that the argument can hardly bear further examination since there are several flaws in it.
To begin with, the arguer assumes that if residents of Clearview replace the current mayor, Frank Braun(F), with Ann Green[A], the environment will be solved definitely, while provides little evidence to support this assumption. As a mayor, he need(s) to do many things to solve the environment problems by no means just one of the Good Earth Coalition can qualify. For example, collecting concrete information about factories, and coordinate(coordinating) with all departments to discuss the urban macro environmental planning. We are in the absence of what about the data of A in other aspects. . In any events, the arguer cannot straightly assume that concern about the environmental protection is the only reason available for voting.(不能说环境问题是惟一能影响选举的，而应该是当前的空气污染问题)
Next, the assertion is unfair. That the current government does not care about protecting the environment for example, is doubling the number of factories over the past few years, air pollution is increasing, but the local hospital for treatment of respiratory patients more than 25% previously(这句话在表达形式上相当混乱，建议先理清顺序再重写一下). But the argument does not tell us whether the new factory is polluting industries(industry), these plants have not taken measures to prevent pollution, without such information we can not determine the impact of these factories for the degree of environmental pollution, because it is possible that these plants are less polluting new industries, or take effective measures. Talking about the air pollution problem(表达不完整), one which is facing a global state, the city's argument(就用the argument就行了吧) did not say(表达不地道 say->provide) the same characteristics of other cities, or in comparison with the earlier history, the figure is large or small, thus can not judge(judge what?表达不完整), on the other hand the air pollution is not necessarily because the city itself, because the wind flow, pollution may come from other places. The hospital, the lack of respiratory disease patients as determined on the basis increase, respiratory diseases occur for many reasons, there are natural, there because of aging, the thesis did not say whether the cause of new patients because of pollution caused. (这是几个散的句子，读不出之间的联系)
Finally,the assertion of another candidate and unfair(这个句子有问题). Even if the argument really like(like在这里表达什么意思？) the current government do not care about the environment said(这句话有问题), that he does not care about the environment. Thesis does not provide whether the damage to the environment of the candidate's record, has been promoting measures that damage the environment.(这样表达也不是很好) Can not be excluded(what can not be excluded主语都省了) because he was concerned about the environment, but his voice was drowned by the Government other sounds(??).
In sum, the conclusion is very arbitrary and unfair. The arguer did not provide the candidates address environmental issues in the results and capabilities(这句读不懂), but also did not provide any evidence of the present government as well as another evidence of the candidates do not care about the environment. If you want to call voters agreed with him, he needs to provide further information in this regard.(又是you, 又是he)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------改1---------------------------------------------------------------------

TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - 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."
WORDS: 412
TIME: 00:31:53
DATE: 2010-8-4 15:13:21

In this argument, the author recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election rather than Frank Braun. In order to make the recommendation convincing and compelling, he/she cites several evidences to bolster it, which involve the increasing of factories in Clearview, and respiratory illnesses have raised 25%. It appears plausible to achieve the conclusion at the first glance.

However, the most conspicuous flaw is that the author decisively asserts if they elect Ann Green the environmental problems will be solved. Although Ann is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, there is no evidence to indicate that Ann will dedicate to solve the city's air pollution or Ann whether Ann is qualified in solving these problems still open to doubt. Because there are many relations should be tackled(adjusted) before solving the problems, and Ann should acquaint with industry production as well, the author has not provided whether Ann has this ability(these capacities), so the conclusion is not convincing.

Furthermore, it is mentioned in the argument that the factories have doubled during the past. But he/she fails to provide what do these factories mainly produce, it is likely that they don't emit any dirty and poisonous air at all, for example they are computer companies(electronic factories). In addition, the author fails to provide whether these factories have deal with air pollution, and whether the air pollution can be ascribed to them. Perhaps, they have deal with the pollution very well, and(or) the dirty air is produced by other (nearby) cities rather than the local factories, and it has been brought to their city by winds. It is, therefore, reasonable for the author to clarify(make clear) these problems to before come(coming) to the conclusion.

Again, are the illnesses caused by air pollution? As we all know, many reasons can contribute to respiratory illness, such as genetic and climate. The author should provide more strong statistics about what results in it, and the sex, age and other physical status of the illnesses are have not be provided, it is possible many of them are old persons, and their illness are not caused by (resulted from) air pollution.

In sum, it is kind the author dedicate to help the residents to improve healthy. And his/her recommendation seems to be rational at the first glance, but more strong statistic and other possible factors, such as whether Ann is the best candidate to solve the pollution and serve as the position, as well as what is primarily accounted for the environmental problem, etc should be well reasoned.

1改
In this argument, the author recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election rather than Frank Braun. In order to make the recommendation convincing and compelling, he/she cites several evidences to bolster it, which involve the increasing of factories in Clearview, and respiratory illnesses have raised 25%. It appears plausible to achieve the conclusion at the first glance, while several persuasive statistics should be covered as well.


The most conspicuous flaw is that the author decisively asserts if they elect Ann Green the environmental problems will be solved. Although Ann is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, there is no evidence to indicate that Ann will dedicate to solve the city's air pollution or whether Ann is qualified in solving these problems still open to doubt[不如删了，or连接两个宾语]. Because there are many relations should be adjusted before solving the environmental problems, and Ann should acquaint with industry production as well, the author has not provided whether Ann has these capacities, so the conclusion is not convincing.
攻击了主要错误点！
Furthermore, it is mentioned in the argument that the number of factories have doubled during the past. However, he/she fails to provide what do these factories mainly produce,我觉得你这句应该跟前面“连”成一个复合句而不是后面 it is likely that they don't emit any dirty and poisonous air at all, for example they are electronic factories, which just process the electronic productions, such as cell phone and PDA, never discharging dirty air at all.解释一下吧！求真相. In addition, the author fails to provide whether these factories have deal with air pollution, and whether the air pollution can be ascribed to them. Perhaps, they have deal with the pollution very well, or the dirty air is produced by other nearby cities rather than the local factories, and it has been brought to their city by winds. It is, therefore, reasonable for the author to make clear these problems before coming to the conclusion.
攻击工厂，很流畅！
Again, are the illnesses caused by air pollution? As we all know, many reasons can contribute to respiratory illness, such as genetic factors前面那个词是形容词
and climatic condition. The author should provide more strong statistics about what results in it, meanwhile, the sex, age and other physical status of the illnesses have not be provided as well, it is possible many of them are old persons, and their illnesses do not result from air pollution, but rather the aging of their respiratory system.
攻击呼吸病的来源
In sum, it is kind the author[ for the author to] dedicate to help the residents to improve healthy. And[delete] His/Her recommendation seems to be rational at the first glance, but more strong statistic and other possible factors, such as whether Ann is the best candidate to solve the pollution and serve as the position, as well as what is primarily accounted for the environmental problem, etc should be well reasoned.


------------------------------------------------------改1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this argument, the author gives some examples to prove that the current members do not effectively protect their environment. Despite some doubts exists(exist) in the evidence, the author contends that as Frank Braun (FB) is one of the town council and Ann Green (AG) is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, AG will solve the Clearview's environmental problems. The argument seems true at first glance, but the second examination reveals that it suffers from several logical flaws.

Firstly, the provided examples can not convince us that the current members
did not protect(感觉用have not protected是不是要好点呢？) the environment. The author presents us three examples. The first one is the doubled factories. Factories are impetus for economy and the government should take a balance between the number of factories and the protecting of the environment. It is aberrant for the government to put aside the development of economy and only consider the protection of the environment. If these factories didn't obey(用have not been obeying 一直不遵守) the environment regulation to pollute the environment, it is not reasonable to count the current. After all, it is possible that a proportion of factories doesn’t or slightly pollutes the environment.

The second example is about the increasing air pollution levels. Air pollution has no boundary, so I doubt whether the essence reason is the current council's policies. Pollutant generated by nearby place is easily spread to Clearview town and as air pollution increase is a global phenomenon, may be the data provided in a global phenomena. The author needs to provide more detail data, like the percentage of air pollutant increased and comparison with other place.


The last example about the increasing patients with respiratory illnesses is doubtful, too. It is possible that these patients are working in other places and come to this hospital to treat disease because the advanced facilities and expertise. It is also possible that the elder citizens, who are vulnerable to all kind of disease, in town are getting more and more. Or may be more and more people is addicted to smoking cigarette nowadays.
这个论述得很好

From the analysis above, we can conclude that the current members may have not overlooked the environmental problems. However, be a member of a group, the Good Earth Coalition or the Clearview town, does not mean the person has the same quality as the group. In other words, FB may be an environmentalist, and AG may not. Without providing evidence to support either one is environmentalist, we cannot reckon that he will pay attention to the environment when he is elected as the mayor.

What's more, to elect a mayor, people couldn’t only judge by one standard, that is whether or not he/she is an environmentalist. There are many more virtues of a person that we need to take into consider, such as the ability to be a leader, the moral and ethic standards, and so on. If the person only emphasize environment but omit other problems in the town, I doubt this one is the right.

All in all, the author's suggestion of voting for AG as the mayoral is untenable. To strengthen his statement, he needs provide the true virtues of AG as a mayor along with his concepts of protecting the environment. Without description of AG, the suggestion cannot convince readers.

austen06UID: 2841836

"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."
WORDS: 482          TIME: 00:39:43          DATE: 2010-8-4 17:22:21

In this letter, the author recommends that people in Clearview should vote for Ann Green who is from Good Earth Coalition instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearviw town council because Frank Braun did not protect the environment during the tenure in the town council. To support this recommendation, the author cites that the number of factories in Clearviw has double and 25 percent more people get respiratory illness. However, this argument suffers from several logical flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the mere fact that the factories in Clearview are twice as many as that of one year before lends no support that the environment in Clearvew is deteriorating. Perhaps these factories are quite environmental friendly and are not releasing dangerous chemicals into the environmental at all. Without providing more information about the whole manufacturing process of these factories, it is unjustifiable for the author to conclude that the pollution level has increased solely based on the doubled number of the factories.

In addition, the fact that the local hospital treated 25 more patients with respiratory illness proves nothing about that the air pollution has aggravated. It is entirely possible that many people in Clearviw have already suffered from respiratory illness for quite a long time, but their symptoms are not serious so they decided not to go to see the doctor until last year they raised their health awareness and started to seek treatment in the hospital. For that matter, it is quite possible that many patients treated in the hospital were from other places and they had respiratory problems before they came to Clearview. Both scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the argument greatly.

Even granted that the air pollution is indeed getting worse, the author unfairly assumes that Frank Braun is responsible for it. Since we are not informed Frank Braun's role in the town council, perhaps Frank Braun is in charge of the educational matters rather than the environmental or economic issues. And the air pollution has nothing to do with him. Without consider this possibility, the author cannot persuade the voters not to vote for Frank Braun.

Finally yet importantly, the author unjustifiably concludes that Ann Green would solve all the environmental problems if elected. However, little evidences are given except that Ann Green was from Good Earth Coalition. Without more information about Ann Green and the Good Earth Coalition, it is unwise for the voters to vote for Ann Green.

To sum up, the author's claim that residents should vote for Ann Green is not well supported. To bolster the conclusion, the author should provide adequate evidence to show that the environment is indeed worsening in Clearview and Frank Braun should be blamed for it. Also, I need more information about Ann Green and her organization to judge whether she could tackle the environmental problems.

自改一+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In this letter, the author recommends that people in Clearview should vote for Ann Green who is from Good Earth Coalition instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearviw town council because Frank Braun did not protect the environment during the tenure in the town council. To support this recommendation, the author cites that the number of factories in Clearviw has double and 25 percent more people get respiratory illness. However, this argument suffers from several logical flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the mere fact that the factories in Clearview are twice as many as that of one year before lends no support that the environment in Clearviw is deteriorating. Perhaps these factories are quite environmental friendly and are not releasing dangerous chemicals into the environmental at all. Without providing more information about the whole manufacturing process of these factories, it is unjustifiable for the author to conclude that the pollution level has increased solely based on the doubled number of the factories.

In addition, the fact that the local hospital treated 25 percents more percents patients with respiratory illness proves nothing about that the air pollution has aggravated. It is entirely possible that many people in Clearviw have already suffered from respiratory illness for quite a long time, but their symptoms are not serious so they decided not to go to see the doctor until last year they raised their health awareness and started to seek treatment in the hospital. And it is also quite possible that many patients treated in the hospital were from other places and they had respiratory problems before they came to Clearview. Both scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the argument greatly.

Even granted that the air pollution is indeed getting worse, the author unfairly assumes that Frank Braun is responsible for it. Since we are not informed Frank Braun's role in the town council, perhaps Frank Braun is in charge of the educational matters rather than the environmental or economic issues.And the air pollution has nothing to do with him. Without consider this possibility, the author cannot persuade the voters not to vote for Frank Braun.

Finally yet importantly, the author unjustifiably concludes that Ann Green would solve all the environmental problems if elected. However, little evidences are given except that Ann Green was from Good Earth Coalition. Without more information about Ann Green and the Good Earth Coalition, it is unwise for the voters to vote for Ann Green.
To sum up, the author's claim that residents should vote for Ann Green is not well supported. To bolster the conclusion, the author should provide adequate evidence to show that the environment is indeed worsening in Clearview and Frank Braun should be blamed for it. Also, I need more information about Ann Green and her organization to judge whether she could tackle the environmental problems.

自改00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
In this letter, the author recommends that people in Clearview should vote for Ann Green who is from Good Earth Coalition instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearviw town council because Frank Braun did not protect the environment during the tenure in the town council. To support this recommendation, the author cites that the number of factories in Clearviw has double and 25 percent more people get respiratory illness. However, this argument suffers from several logical flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the mere fact that the factories in Clearview are twice as many as that of one year before lends no support that the environment in Clearviw is deteriorating. Perhaps these factories are quite environmental friendly and are not releasing waste water or poisonous gas into the environment at all. Without providing more information about the whole manufacturing process of these factories, it is unjustifiable for the author to conclude that the pollution level has increased solely based on the doubled number of the factories.
In addition, the fact that the local hospital treated 25 percents more percents patients
with respiratory illness proves nothing about that the air pollution has aggravated. It is entirely possible that Clearview residents have raised their health awarness and started to go to see doctor for the respiratory problems they have had. And it is also quite possible that many patients treated in the hospital were from other places and they had respiratory problems before they came to Clearview. Both scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the argument greatly.
Even granted that the air pollution is indeed getting worse, the author unfairly assumes that Frank Braun is responsible for it. Since we are not informed Frank Braun's role in the town council, perhaps Frank Braun is in charge of the educational matters rather than the environmental or economic issues.And the air pollution has nothing to do with him. Without considering this possibility, the author cannot persuade the voters not to vote for Frank Braun.
Finally yet importantly, the author unjustifiably concludes that Ann Green would solve all the environmental problems if elected. However, little evidences are given except that Ann Green was from Good Earth Coalition. Without more information about Ann Green and the Good Earth Coalition, it is unwise for the voters to vote for Ann Green. Moreover, if she happens to propose accelerating economic development at the expense of the environment, it would cast considerable doubt on the argument's conclusion.
To sum up, the author's claim that residents should vote for Ann Green is not well supported. To bolster the conclusion, the author should provide adequate evidence to show that the environment is indeed worsening in Clearview and Frank Braun should be blamed for it. Also, I need more information about Ann Green and her organization to judge whether she could tackle the environmental problems.

austen06UID: 2841836

"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."
字数：478
用时：00:47:44
日期：2010-8-4
下午 06:10:55

In this argument, the author draws a hasty conclusion that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, belong(belonging) to the Good Earth Coalition instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of the Cleanview town council, in the next mayoral election. For he thinks the current members are not protecting the environment. His suggestion, in my personal view, is unconvincing, as well as unfair.
On one hand, although the arguer has provided some so called examples, showing the current members are not protecting the environment. (这里仅有一个从句）On a second consideration（没有这个短语吧）, the evidences he cited are all of no use. First, the increasing number are(is) not indicating heavier pollution. We have got no information about the real condition of the added factories. It is possible that the new factories are manufactories, making their products only by hand without polluting the city; It is also possible the factories have take strict measures of avoiding(to avoid) pollution. On the contrary, doubling the factories reveals the current leader may lead to the growth of the city, which would bring a lot to the citizens(这条论据真的很奇怪，你应该写的是工厂数量加倍后环境质量并没有下降）. Second, more air pollution also dosen't（apostrophe abbreviations are not alowed in former English writings) mean they don't care about the environment, after all, air pollution is just an aspect of all factors that could review the quality of where we are living; Third, concerning the number of inspiring patients has also increased, the author simply own it to worse surroundings, is still assertive. What if other kinds of disease decreased?
Should it also be a implication of better environment? If so, what's the real condition in the city?
what's more, the author ignored the whole change（what change？）, maybe in the country, even in the world. As is known to all, with the developing of our society, the problem of pollution is all over the earth. Even if current members have taken several measure to do the protection, can they stop the trendency? Without comparing the environment in Clearview with nearby cities, there is no reason to claim nothing has down by the current goverment. （这个攻击点应该不是这篇argument的主要问题）
On the other hand, granted current members are really not protecting the surroundings, it is unfair to say Frank Braun will do the same thing as them, at the same time, no one could ensure if Ann will
take measures as the author's prediction if she was elected. Perhaps Frank is more concerning about how to decline pollution, and maybe he is a expert in this field. No information was given about the two candidits' capacity and politics view, it is not responsible to descide who is better fit to be the leader.

To sum up, the author's conclusion is not persuasive as it stands. Before I accept his prediction（明明是recommendation), he must provide more substantial evidence to show the current members' no protection.(明白你的意思，换个正常点的说法） Additionally, he'd better provide more information of the two candidits so that the citizens could make a better and fair choice.

（通读下来感觉思路不是很清晰，攻击点找的貌似不在点上）


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
改亚当

The notion that we should vote for Ann Green(AG) in the next mayoral election seems to be sound and convincing at the first glance. After all, AG is a member of the Good earth Coalition(GEC), the number of factories in Clearview(C) has doubles, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. However, close scrutiny of each of these evidences reveals than none of them lend credible support to the recommendation. The reasons are stated as below.

First of all, the arguer judged the pollution levels have increased from the phenomena that the number of factories has doubled and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses, which are doubtable. As the arguer does not provide any information about the factories, chances are that even the total number of factories has doubled, the pollution caused by each of them is decreased more than half, which means the total pollution has also decreased at the same time. And the 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses can not lead to the conclusion either. We do not know whether the population in P increased more than 25 percent. If so, the people with respiratory illnesses only provide evidence to show the pollution level in C decreased. Or maybe such increase of(in) the number of people with respiratory illnesses is because(is due to) the people today focus on the health problem that were overlooked by them, which indicates they may caught the illness but do not go to hospital to treated it. Unless the arguer can ruling out all the possibilities I mentioned above, the mid-conclusion that the pollution levels increased is undermined.(P 和C都没有定义，而且一个词的专有名词最好不要缩写）

Even if the pollution levels have increased, which is of course an unwarranted assumption, whether AG can solve the problem is unknown. It is true that he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. However, it is not strong enough to his abilities to solve problems like that. If he is just take part in such coalition but did not do any contribution or successfully solve a case while Frank Braun(FB) have already worked out several complicated pollution problems , the conclusion will become that if people in C elect AG, the environmental problems in C will certainly not be solved.

Furthermore, granted that AG can solve environment problems better than FB, it can not support the conclusion. Which candidate to vote is not only based on the abilities to solve environment problems. Otherwise every America president candidate would just need to prove how they can solve those pollutions around the world, which is definitely not the truth. We have to test the candidate from all aspects, like the abilities to stimulate the economic; the power to run the programs; the reputation is the whole society and so on.

To sum up, after pointing out so many flaws in the argument, now we can say that all these evidence can not be used to support the recommendation. Maybe the people in C should vote AG, but before make such recommendation, the arguer have to provide more persuasive, practical and professional research and survey like the facts to show their abilities to solve different problems or the evidence to prove AG can lead Clearview into a better future than FB. （不知道and and能不能像这样用）

sharonyeUID: 2862009

题目：ARGUMENT7 - 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."
字数：478
用时：00:47:44
日期：2010-8-4
下午 06:10:55

In this argument, the author draws a hasty conclusion that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, belong to the Good Earth Coalition instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of the Cleanview town council, in the next mayoral election. For he thinks the current members are not protecting the environment. His suggestion, in my personal view, is unconvincing, as well as unfair.
On one hand, although the arguer has provided some so called examples, showing the current members are not protecting the environment. On a second consideration, the evidence he cited are all of no use. First, the increasing number are not indicating heavier pollution. We have got no information about the real condition of the added factories. It is possible that the new factories are manufactories, making their products only by hand without polluting the city; It is also possible the factories have take strict measures of avoiding pollution. On the contrary, doubling the factories reveals the current leader may lead to the growth of the city, which would bring a lot to the citizens. Second, more air pollution also dosen't mean they don't care about the environment, after all, air pollution is just an aspect of all factors that could review the quality of where we are living; Third, concerning the number of inspiring patients has also increased, the author simply own it to worse surroundings,
is still assertive. What if other kinds of disease decreased?
Should it also be a implication of better environment? If so, what's the real condition in the city?
what's more, the author ignored the whole change, maybe in the country, even in the world. As is known to all, with the developing of our society, the problem of pollution is all over the earth. Even if current members have taken several measure to do the protection, can they stop the trendency? Without comparing the environment in Clearview with nearby cities, there is no reason to claim nothing has down by the current goverment.
On the other hand, granted current members are really not protecting the surroundings, it is unfair to say Frank Braun will do the same thing as them, at the same time, no one could ensure if Ann will
take measures as the author's prediction if she was elected. Perhaps Frank is more concerning about how to decline pollution, and maybe he is a expert in this field. No information was given about the two candidits' capacity and politics view, it is not responsible to descide who is better fit to be the leader.

To sum up, the author's conclusion is not persuasive as it stands. Before I accept his prediction, he must provide more substantial evidence to show the current members' no protection. Additionally, he'd better provide more information of the two candidits so that the citizens could make a better and fair choice.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________自改一
In this argument, the author draws a hasty conclusion that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, belonging to the Good Earth Coalition instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of the Cleanview town council, in the next mayoral election. For he thinks the current members are not protecting the environment.

His suggestion, in my personal view, is unconvincing, as well as unfair.
On one hand, although the arguer has provided some so called examples, showing the current members are not protecting the environment. A second look would reveal hoe groundless the evidences he cited are .

First, the increasing number is not indicating heavier pollution. We have got no information about the real condition of the added factories. It is possible that the new factories are manufactories,
making their products only by hand without polluting the city; It is also possible the factories have take strict measures to avoid pollution. On the contrary, doubling the factories reveals the current leader may lead to the growth of the city economy, which would bring a lot to the citizens.

Second, more air pollution also dose not mean they are not
caring about the environment, after all, air pollution is just an aspect of all factors that could review the quality of where we are living.

Third, concerning the number of inspiring patients has also increased, the author simply own it to worse surroundings, is still assertive. What if other kinds of disease decreased?
Should it also be a implication of better environment? If so, what's the real condition in the city?


What's more, the author ignored the whole change of environment maybe in the country, even in the world. As is known to all, with the developing of our society, the problem of pollution is all over the earth. Even if current members have taken several measure to do the protection, can they stop the trendency? Without comparing the environment in Clearview with nearby cities, there is no reason to claim nothing has down by the current goverment.

On the other hand, granted current members are really not protecting the surroundings, it is unfair to say Frank Braun will do the same thing as them, at the same time, no one could ensure if Ann will take measures as the author's prediction if she was elected. Perhaps Frank is more concerning about how to decline pollution, and maybe he is a expert in this field. No information was given about the two candidits' capacity and politics view, it is not responsible to descide who is better fit to be the leader.

To sum up, the author's conclusion is not persuasive as it stands. Before I accept his recommendation, he must provide more substantial evidence to show the current members' no protection. Additionally, he'd better provide more information of the two candidits so that the citizens could make a better and fair choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
In this argument, the author draws a hasty conclusion that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, belonging to the Good Earth Coalition instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of the Cleanview town council, in the next mayoral election. For he thinks the current members are not protecting the environment. His suggestion, in my personal view, is unconvincing, as well as unfair. On one hand, although the arguer has provided some so called examples, showing the current members are not protecting the environment. A second look would reveal hoe groundless the evidences he cited are .

On the one hand, the evidence cited in the argument is not reliable.

First, the increasing number of factories mentioned is not indicating heavier pollution. We have got no information about the real condition of the added factories. It is possible that the new factories are manufactories, making their products only by hand without polluting the city; It is also possible the factories have take strict measures to avoid pollution. On the contrary, doubling the factories reveals the current leader may lead to the growth of the city economy, which would bring a lot to the citizens.

Second, more air pollution also dose not mean they are not caring about the environment, after all, air pollution is just an aspect of all factors that could review the quality of where we are living. Third, concerning the number of inspiring patients has also increased, the author simply own it to worse surroundings, is still assertive. What if other kinds of disease decreased? Should it also be a implication of better environment? If so, what's the real condition in the city?

What's more, the author ignored the whole change of environment maybe in the country, even in the world. As is known to all, with the developing of our society, the problem of pollution is all over the earth. Even if current members have taken several measure to do the protection, can they stop the trendency? Without comparing the environment in Clearview with nearby cities, there is no reason to claim nothing has down by the current goverment.

On the other hand, granted current members are really not protecting the surroundings, it is unfair to say Frank Braun will do the same thing as them, at the same time, no one could ensure if Ann will take measures as the author's prediction if she was elected. Perhaps Frank is more concerning about how to decline pollution, and maybe he is a expert in this field. No information was given about the two candidits' capacity and politics view, it is not responsible to descide who is better fit to be the leader.

To sum up, the author's conclusion is not persuasive as it stands. Before I accept his recommendation, he must provide more substantial evidence to show the current members' no protection. Additionally, he'd better provide more information of the two candidits so that the citizens could make a better and fair choice.