【草莓酱拌饭组】1ARGUMENT7 by deeper99

deeper99UID: 2606523

7 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."

[我的提纲]
1.仅仅空气差并不代表Clearview的整体环境变差；
2.即便如此，这也未必能完全归咎于council；
3.假设真的是council做得不好，而Good Earth Coalition做得好，也不意味Ann 比Frank更胜任市长的工作；

The passage draws a conclusion that residents of Clearview should support Ann Green rather than Frank Braun in order to solve
the local environmental problems, based on several fallacious assumptions: Firstly,  the local environment turned worse last year.  Secondly,
Clearview town council was to blame for the environmental problems. Thirdly, Ann could achieve a better job than Frank in improving the
environment.

Although the passage confirms that the air pollution in Clearview has been worsen, further information about other kinds of
environmental pollution is absent. For example, the passage fails to mention whether the water pollution in Clearview has been alleviated or
not. Similar aspects neglected by author include solid waste,  noise pollution, nuclear pollution, garbage recycle system and so on. What's
more, severe as it might seem to be as the number of factories has doubled and patients with respiratory illness has increased by 25%, still, the relevance between them and pollution is not clearly demonstrated in the argument. What if  90% of the factories have been rebuilt to reach
environmentally friendly standards with no harmful effect on the environment and how about the increase of those patients is the result of
the raise  trend in population density? Since the passage has not excluded those probable factors yet, isn't it necessary to conduct a survey
about the local environmental pollution before the conclusion to be made?

Moreover, it is still questionable if the local council should burden the whole responsibility. Despite the possibility of the
worsened environment in Clearview, the author neither proves that the Clearview town council has not made any efforts for the local
environment nor mentions any of their measures of controlling the pollution. It might be probable that the local pollution was in such a
serious situation long time ago that even though huge efforts have been made by the local council, it is still impossible to hold back the
extension of the local pollution up till now. Also, pollution control is a long-term project, whose effectiveness might not be perceived in a
short period. Hence, it is most likely that the project of pollution control in Clearview is taking effect in a slowly increasing speed that a ten-
year period might be the least required cycle for the recovery of the environment, which is to say that such potential contribution might just
be neglected. Thus, before criticizing the local council blindly, it is better suggested to assure if they had taken any measure of the pollution.

Furthermore, an organization cannot represent all the capabilities of every member in it. Even if the local council really
underperformed in the pollution field,  we should not lose sight of the probability that Frank Braun may be competent for this job. A possible
situation might be that Frank is right to be an environment specialist and his representation for the Clearview town council reflects their
determination to cure the environmental problems in Clearview. Similarly, it could be irrational to judge that Ann Green is more capable for
mayor simply becase she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, which might perform well in solving environmental problems though.
Apart from the background above, it should be more practical to evaluate the candidate in comparison of their manifold abilities, not just the
aspect of pollution solving. For instance, Ann Green might be more familiar with environmental problems. However, she might not be so
excellent as Frank in collecting enough money as well as support from the state government and wealthy people for the project of pollution
control.  A mayor is able to compensate her/his lack of professional knowledge about pollution by employing some specialists. Yet, without
enough money, few changes s/he could make on the pollution issues. Besides, the passage has not explicitly telled whether there are only two
candidates. If not, it might be better to take other candidates into comparison, too.

The argument for the selection of candidates based on their organization background could offer valuable information for voters.
Before conclusion about the suitable mayor to be reached, however, a further survey about the candidates' capabilities and the organizations
to which they are belonged are needed. After all, a slapdash judgement might mislead the essential future of Clearview.

deeper99UID: 2606523

格式很诡异！我再重发一次，抱歉！
7 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."

[我的提纲]
1.仅仅空气差并不代表Clearview的整体环境变差；
2.即便如此，这也未必能完全归咎于council；
3.假设真的是council做得不好，而Good Earth Coalition做得好，也不意味Ann 比Frank更胜任市长的工作；

The passage draws a conclusion that residents of Clearview should support Ann Green rather than Frank Braun in order to solve the local
environmental problems, based on several fallacious assumptions: Firstly,  the local environment turned worse last year.  Secondly, Clearview
town council was to blame for the environmental problems. Thirdly, Ann could achieve a better job than Frank in improving the
environment.


Although the passage confirms that the air pollution in Clearview has been worsen, further information about other kinds of environmental
pollution is absent. For example, the passage fails to mention whether the water pollution in Clearview has been alleviated or not. Similar
aspects neglected by author include solid waste,  noise pollution, nuclear pollution, garbage recycle system and so on. What's more, severe as
it might seem to be as the number of factories has doubled and patients with respiratory illness has increased by 25%, still, the relevance
between them and pollution is not clearly demonstrated in the argument. What if  90% of the factories have been rebuilt to reach
environmentally friendly standards with no harmful effect on the environment and how about the increase of those patients is the result of
the raise  trend in population density? Since the passage has not excluded those probable factors yet, isn't it necessary to conduct a survey
about the local environmental pollution before the conclusion to be made?


Moreover, it is still questionable if the local council should burden the whole responsibility. Despite the possibility of the worsened
environment in Clearview, the author neither proves that the Clearview town council has not made any efforts for the local environment nor
mentions any of their measures of controlling the pollution. It might be probable that the local pollution was in such a serious situation long
time ago that even though huge efforts have been made by the local council, it is still impossible to hold back the extension of the local
pollution up till now. Also, pollution control is a long-term project, whose effectiveness might not be perceived in a short period. Hence, it is
most likely that the project of pollution control in Clearview is taking effect in a slowly increasing speed that a ten-year period might be the
least required cycle for the recovery of the environment, which is to say that such potential contribution might just be neglected. Thus, before
criticizing the local council blindly, it is better suggested to assure if they had taken any measure of the pollution.


Furthermore, an organization cannot represent all the capabilities of every member in it. Even if the local council really underperformed in
the pollution field,  we should not lose sight of the probability that Frank Braun may be competent for this job. A possible situation might be
that Frank is right to be an environment specialist and his representation for the Clearview town council reflects their determination to cure
the environmental problems in Clearview. Similarly, it could be irrational to judge that Ann Green is more capable for mayor simply becase
she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, which might perform well in solving environmental problems though. Apart from the
background above, it should be more practical to evaluate the candidate in comparison of their manifold abilities, not just the aspect of
pollution solving. For instance, Ann Green might be more familiar with environmental problems. However, she might not be so excellent as
Frank in collecting enough money as well as support from the state government and wealthy people for the project of pollution control.  A
mayor is able to compensate her/his lack of professional knowledge about pollution by employing some specialists. Yet, without enough
money, few changes s/he could make on the pollution issues. Besides, the passage has not explicitly telled whether there are only two
candidates. If not, it might be better to take other candidates into comparison, too.


The argument for the selection of candidates based on their organization background could offer valuable information for voters. Before
conclusion about the suitable mayor to be reached, however, a further survey about the candidates' capabilities and the organizations to
which they are belonged are needed. After all, a slapdash judgement might mislead the essential future of Clearview.

deeper99UID: 2606523

似乎又滑水了……
还是不行。

Donna.#UID: 2707837

deeper的A写的不错，动词用的很好，而且特别喜欢你关于未必Ann更适合的那段驳论很精彩，我个人则多是指出该错误，进一步的论证尚待提高，向你学习！:p
不妥之处，小的认为有三：
1.开头段把A中的问题指出来，但综合全文，感觉没有太多的行文联系，若能再多加点相关的逻辑连接词，或是前后多一些照应的语句，则全文就显得更加完整了。
2.A possible situation might be
that Frank is right to be an environment specialist and his representation for the Clearview town council reflects their determination to cure
the environmental problems in Clearview. Similarly, it could be irrational to judge that Ann Green is more capable for mayor simply becase
she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, which might perform well in solving environmental problems though.既然逻辑语句相似，为什么不简要一笔带过，这样写是否过于罗嗦？改为similarly, Ann Green might not be more capable for mayor.如何？
3.第一个逻辑错误的指出有些问题，原文的主要矛盾是factories and air pollution， 加上其他的pollution没有必要，反倒削弱了要论证的主题。删掉为好啊。。。

deeper99UID: 2606523

谢谢Donna！
现在回头想想，感觉2的逻辑句的确显得罗嗦了，还是简短句子适合啊！
另外，关于第三点，我主要是针对题目的结论句，即“If we elect Ann Green, the environmental

problems in　Clearview will certainly be sovled”，它的观点是能够解决环境问题，所以我还是

以为文章针对的不仅仅是factories and air pollution，而是更广的范畴。

deeper99UID: 2606523

P.S.我发觉最近那个验证码老是提示出错，不知各位有否解决方法？（一般都要刷新个好几遍才能发成功一次又或者明明问题与验证码都打钩了还是提示验证码不正确，唉……）