ARGUMENT7，跪求拍砖，没时间了！！！万分感谢！！！

peterboyUID: 2638100

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: 513
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009/8/25 15:10:26 Peter

By citing the evidence that the current mayor, Frank Braun(FB), who is a member of the Clearview town council,(CTC) is seemed relevant to the decline of standard of environment in Clearview(C), the arguer makes the conclusion that Ann Green(AG), who is a member of Good Earth Coalition, should be elected to be the next mayor. This argument is filled with logical fallacies hence being unconvincing.


To begin with, the statement FB is responsible for the damage of environment is unreliable. Merely based on the fact that FB is one of the members of CTC, whose members are not protecting environment, the cause and effect relationship cannot be established. It is highly possible that most of the members of CTC do not concern about environment but FB is an exception. Without explanation that FB is indeed indifferent to environment, this causal relationship can hardly be founded. Moreover, the examples factories doubled last year, air pollution levels increased along with the phenomenon that patients with respiratory illnesses increased by 25 percent are open to doubt in several aspects. A great deal of empirical evidence shows that factories’ coming is not a simple thing finishing in one year. Maybe the agreement on these factories’ coming was signed by former mayor rather than FB. Without ruling out this possibility, this phenomenon can illustrate nothing. Also, air pollution might be caused by these factories which probably have no relation to FB or other reasons like natural disasters, people's unhealthy habits, and rapid increasing number in vehicles etc... which are also in no reference to FB. 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses is also unwarranted as we are not told the previous number of such patients and if these patients were rare before, 25 percent increasing cannot prove FB's fault but more likely a contingence. Without eliminating all these scenarios, the conclusion that FB is the real crime for pollution is unverified.


Moreover, we are not told whether AG is capable to be a mayor for the arguer provides no information about AG. It is entirely possible that AG is a woman who is even more indifferent to the environment or she is not competent in other facets, like economic construction, cultural education or technological development. The total absence of her information, we have every reason to doubt whether AG is able to do better than FB.


Given FB is not cared about environment and AG is more competent than FB, we still cannot hastily draw the conclusion that AG is the best choice for the nest mayor. Other possible candidates are not considered who are likely to be more capable than AG. Unless the arguer take this aspect into consideration, it is impossible to evaluate the accuracy of the conclusion.


In sum, the argument is not so warranted as it stands. To better assess it, the arguer should provide more evidence showing FB is responsible for pollution and AG is indeed better than FB as well. To bolster it, comparison with other candidates' is essential and vital to substantiate the conclusion that FB is the optimal one.

cs900601UID: 2512554

By citing the evidence that the current mayor, Frank Braun(FB), who is a member of the Clearview town council,(CTC) is seemed relevant to the decline of standard of environment in Clearview(C), the arguer makes the conclusion that Ann Green(AG), who is a member of Good Earth Coalition, should be elected to be the next mayor. This argument is filled with logical fallacies hence being unconvincing.


To begin with, the statement FB is responsible for the damage of environment is unreliable. Merely based on the fact that FB is one of the members of CTC, whose members are not protecting environment, the cause and effect relationship cannot be established. It is highly possible that most of the members of CTC are not concerned about environment but FB is an exception. (Without explanation that FB is indeed indifferent to environment, this causal relationship can hardly be founded. )这句可以不用说，和之前的意思重复 Moreover, the examples factories doubled last year, air pollution levels increased along with the phenomenon that patients with respiratory illnesses increased by 25 percent are open to doubt in several aspects. A great deal of empirical evidence shows that factories’ coming is not a simple thing that can be finishedin one year. Maybe the agreement on these factories’ coming was signed by former mayor rather than FB. Without ruling out this possibility, this phenomenon can illustrate nothing. Also, air pollution might be caused by these factories which probably have no relation to FB or other reasons like natural disasters, people's unhealthy habits, and rapid increasing number in vehicles etc... which are also in no reference to FB. 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses is also unwarranted as we are not told the previous number of such patients and if these patients were rare before, 25 percent increasing cannot prove FB's fault but more likely a contingence. Without eliminating all these scenarios, the conclusion that FB is the real crime for pollution is unverified.
还可以说，那些25%的病人可能是老年人，这个城市的人口可能老年人居多。同时，也可能是坏气候导致的，等等。总之就是说没有与污染有直接关联。即便有关联，也不一定是CTC造成的。

Moreover, we are not told whether AG is capable to be a mayor for the arguer provides no information about AG. It is entirely possible that AG is a woman 为什么一定是woman呢？woman应该不是这篇讨论的问题阿 who is even more indifferent to the environment or she is not competent in other facets, like economic construction, cultural education or technological development. with The total absence of her information, we have every reason to doubt whether AG is able to do better than FB.


Given FB is not cared about environment and AG is more competent than FB, we still cannot hastily draw the conclusion that AG is the best choice for the next mayor. Other possible candidates are not considered who are likely to be more capable than AG. Unless the arguer takes this aspect into consideration, it is impossible to evaluate the accuracy of the conclusion.

In sum, the argument is not so warranted as it stands. To better assess it, the arguer should provide more evidence showing FB is responsible for pollution and AG is indeed better than FB as well. To bolster it, comparison with other candidates' is essential and vital to substantiate the conclusion that FB is the optimal one.

总的来说，和范文的思路比较像，也比较清晰，还是不错的

有些小拼写错误，大可避免

peterboyUID: 2638100

谢谢LS点评