Argument7, 诚恳请求拍砖

monika_rhliUID: 2314050

过一个礼拜就要考试了，现在把练习的习作发上来，诚恳请求拍砖

Argument7: 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 had treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved.


In this letter the editor recommends that we should vote Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than Fran Braun, a member of the Clearview town council in order to protect the environment where we live. In substantiate this recommendation the editor points out that there is an increasing trend of air pollution and respiratory patients in our town. In addition, the editor indicates that current members of town council did not pay emphasis on the protection of environment. However, the recommendation rests on a serious of unwarranted assumptions and suspicious evidences, which render the argument unfounded as it stands.

Firstly, the editor fails to indicate that Ann Green is loyal to solve the environment problems rather than Frank Braun, because Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. The editor assumes that we should vote for Ann Green because he would give dedication to environment problems in our town, but this might not be the case. In other hand, the editor reasons that Frank a member of the Clearview town council would ignore the environment problems. It is entirely possible that the statement discussed above may come to the contrary. In addition, there is no evidence show that the mayor in our town has the responsibility of the increasing number of factories and polluted airs. So, without ruling out this important factor, the editor cannot justifiably to draw the conclusion.

Secondly, even the assuming above is convincing, the editor neglects the facts that more patients with respiratory illnesses were caused by the polluted air condition. As we all known that many factors would lead to respiratory illnesses. Perhaps, many people catch cold in recent time and with the byproduct of respiratory illnesses. Or perhaps, a epidemic disease caused the increasing respiratory illnesses. Without ruling out these possibilities, the conclusion mentioned in the argument is gratuitous.

Finally, the editor fails to indicate that what kinds of factories were increasing in our town. It is highly possible that the air pollution was caused by increasing cars in our town. Common sense informs me that this alternative’ occurrence is quite possible. So, if the case is true, it is unfair to claim that increasing factories to be fault in air pollution.

Sum up, the editor recommendation is unsupported in some aspects. To make the recommendation more convincing, the editor should provide solid evidence that Ann Green inclines to protect our environment and the increasing number of respiratory patients was caused by air pollution resulting from the increasing number of factories. Furthermore, the evidence that Ann Green would solve the environmental problem should be provided. If these scenarios discussed above are give, it would make the recommendation more thorough and logical acceptable.