【草莓酱拌饭组】1ARGUMENT7 by 单眼皮 第二次修改在9楼

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID: 2705887

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."

提纲：
1.选市长的标准是什么？
2.展开论述作者三个例子的逻辑错误，由其例子不能显而易见的得出他的结论
    a. 空气污染指数增高是因为现市政成员的忽视/不重视造成的嘛？有没有其他原因呢；
    b. 患呼吸道疾病的人*1.25 -->个人的生活习惯，吸烟与否，汽车尾气都有可能导致呼吸疾病；
    c. 工厂的增多 –> 有没有可能是C市的地理位置优越，导致投资增多，从而更多的创造就业机会。但并没因此就能得出现市政成员为了经济而牺牲环境绿化的结论。
3.总结：说服选民选举市长，必须是候选人有很强的组织能力，综合能力，而不是仅仅着着于是否是环保人员。同时指出，Frank虽然作为现市政成员，并不代表其不重视保护环境。

Before we talk about who should be elected to next mayoral, Ann Green or Frank Braun, we must know the first what performances is better as a mayor, what factors the Clearview people are really concern about is good for the city and good for people? Is it economics, health-care, zero violence commitment, and city constructing? Is the environmental problem is really leading to the primarily problem in Clearview?

Author was trying to convince the editor that Ann Green be able to solve environmental problems just because he/she is the member of Good Earth Coalition, and conducted that Ann should be the voted as next mayor. From the example the author cited, it is hardly to know the environmental problem is the hot issue. Author only argues air pollution levels have increased. Is it really leading by current council members’ neglect, or is there have other reasons? The increased population might consume more energy which produce deleterious gas, for instance, the exhaust fumes from car. Controlling the population and even controlling the number of private car but encouraging people using public transportation instead of private car is not only the work of environmentalist but need a omnipotent politician.

Another is 25 percent more patients with respiratory illness were treated the local hospital. Author ascribed it totally aroused by not protecting environment. Even so, seems there is other root cause, such as the habit of personal life. Might more people joined in cigarette smoking; might the public district is not enough divided by smoking areas and non-smoking. People are free to smoking cigarettes everywhere, which second-hand smoking is more horrible than first smoking and easier to fall the respiratory illnesses. Might there was epidemical flu prevalently last year. In this conclusion, people are more need a mayor who is expert to public affairs but not only stress on environment.

To these maybe add a third assumption from writer: the number of factories in Clearview has doubled during the past year, because of the current council members were not protecting the environment. The assumption make mistake of taking apart for all. Probably, town Clearview has its advantage of geography that near the port, transportation convenience. It attracts many opportunities for investment. In order to make Clearview more prospers and factories can afford more jobs for people in Clearview, current council members pass the bill to increase factories. For this reason, we cannot simply say current council members do not pay the attention to make green land.

So far, we only know Ann is member of Good Earth Coalition, while Frank is a member of town council. It hardly knows what the performance of Ann in GEC. Moreover, there is no necessarily relation between environmental problems will certainly be solved, and Ann is the member of GEC. As well, we cannot deduce that as Frank is not from GEC, he will definitely overlook the protection environment. Seems the author deliberately ignores what performances and ability should be as a mayor. Mayoral election only depend upon one narrow aspect is lack of cogence.

韶华竟白头UID: 2714995

小樱改逻辑问题，我来改文字。
改好了算我的，改砸了算草木的|o|

第一段
Before we talk about who should be elected to next mayoral {be the next mayor，mayoral是形容词}, Ann Green or Frank Braun, we must know the first what performances {whose performance} is better as a mayor, what factors the Clearview people are really concern about is good for the city and good for people? {whether the factors the Clearview people are concerned about are good for them or not,} Is it economics, health-care, zero violence commitment, and city constructing? {whether factors of economic policies, healthcare system, crime rate and urban planning have been taken into consideration,} Is
the environmental problem is really leading {lead} to the primarily problem in Clearview? {and whether the environmental problems lead to other problems in Clearview.}

韶华竟白头UID: 2714995

第二段

Author {The author} was {is} trying to convince the editor that Ann Green be {will be} able to solve environmental problems just because he/she is the {a} member of {the} Good Earth Coalition, and conducted {makes the conclusion} that Ann should be the voted as next mayor {voted into power}. From the example the author cited {cites}, it is hardly {hard} to know {tell} the environmental problem is the hot issue. Author {The author} only argues air pollution levels have increased. Is it really leading by {due to negligence of} current council members’{去掉'} neglect {去掉}, or is there have other{are there other} reasons? The increased population might consume more energy which {through which } produce {去掉} deleterious gas {gases have been produced and discharged}, for instance,{For instance,} the exhaust fumes from car {cars}. Controlling the population and even controlling the number of private car but encouraging people using public transportation instead of private car is not only the work of environmentalist but need a omnipotent politician. {It is up to the environmentalists and politicians in power to control the population and the number of private cars and encourage better use of the public transportation system.}

韶华竟白头UID: 2714995

第三段：

Another is {Another flaw lies with the statement that} 25 percent more patients with respiratory illness were treated {in} the local hospital. Author {The author} ascribed it totally aroused by not protecting environment {ascribes it to environmental pollution}. Even so, seems there is other root cause, such as the habit of personal life. {it apparently has something to do with lifestyles.} Might more people joined in cigarette smoking; might the public district is not enough divided by smoking areas and non-smoking. {It is possible that more people take up smoking or 后半句没看懂。} People are free to smoking cigarettes everywhere, which second-hand smoking is more horrible than first smoking and easier to fall the respiratory illnesses. {太Chinglish了，而且不是每个地方都可以随便吸烟的，说法过于绝对了。} Might there was epidemical flu prevalently last year. {Possibly a flu was prevalent in the winter of last year.} In this conclusion, people are more need a mayor who is expert to public affairs but not only stress on environment. {To sum up, a mayor that is familiar with public affairs including environment protection is needed.}

韶华竟白头UID: 2714995

第四段：

To these maybe add a third assumption from writer:{The author also implies that} the number of factories in Clearview has doubled during the past year, because of {去掉} the current council members were not protecting the environment. The assumption make mistake of taking apart for all. {This is an overgeneralization.} Probably, town Clearview has its advantage of geography that near the port, transportation convenience. It attracts many opportunities for investment. {boasts traffic convenience and attracts investors.} In order to make Clearview more prospers {prosperous} and factories can afford more jobs for people in Clearview {offer more jobs to local pople}, current council members pass the bill to increase {set up more} factories. For this reason, we cannot simply say current council members do not pay the attention to make green land.{have not paid enough attention to environmental problems.}

韶华竟白头UID: 2714995

第五段：

So far, we only know Ann is {a} member of {the} Good Earth Coalition {(GEC)}, while Frank is a member of {the} town council. It hardly knows what the performance of Ann in GEC {We don't know about Ann’s performance in GEC.}. Moreover, there is no necessarily relation {direct link} between environmental problems will certainly be solved, and Ann is the member of GEC {the solution of environmental problems and Ann’s being a member of GEC}. As well {What’s more}, we cannot deduce that as Frank is not from GEC, he will definitely overlook the protection environment {Frank, who is not from GEC, will neglect the environmental problems.}. Seems the author deliberately ignores what performances and ability should be as a mayor. {It seems that the author fails to understand the qualities essential to a mayor candidate.} Mayoral election only depend upon one narrow aspect is lack of cogence.{看不懂，所以不改了。}

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

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."

主线：选安妮当市长能保护环境—从而解决该市环境问题
分论点：1. 安妮是GE coalition成员，F不是---A比F能更好的保护环境

2. 工厂增倍，污染加重，呼吸疾患增多—说明现任政府班子没好好保护环境


我的思路：
C市有否真的环境恶化？（略写，一笔带过老土的数据问题，样本可信度等，最多一两句话）
即便如此，是F的政府班子的问题吗？（稍微写几个可能性，以驳斥第一句话的末尾说的because the current members are not protecting our environment）
如果是F做的不够，那A真的能比F更好地保护环境吗？（展开驳斥A和F参加什么团体并不代表他们保护环境的真实意愿，及制定并执行环保政策的能力）
即使A保护环境方面果然做的更好了，已形成的环境问题能一下解决吗？（再详细说几点可能性，关于环境问题不可能马上逆转等常识）

从提纲上看，同学努力去实践自由写作，虽然略微有些基于新东方某些关于按文章一句句驳斥的写作方法，但实行上还是努力做了一番改变。
主要问题是，这样的改变在我看来还不够直入主题，使得各个小点没有有机地结合起来，颇有隔靴搔痒之感。为了避免每条论点都振振有词，实则一盘散沙的写作现状，我认为可以采取在写作前先理清逻辑链，然后步步紧逼，层层深入的方法。
第二点展开过多，但第二点 just the comparatively minor point，过多倚重此点的展开显然会削弱整体文章的批驳力度。
第三点的前半句和第一点重复，后半句的同时指出其实是另一个驳斥点，混杂在一起恐怕不太妥当。第一点容易偏题，比如说像这样，其实已经偏题。“说服选民选举市长，必须是候选人有很强的组织能力，综合能力，而不是仅仅着着于是否是环保人员。”题目要求驳斥的是关于该不该选A作市长，选A能不能解决环境问题，并不需要考核作为市长的其他要素。如果文章花不少篇幅写这个，对argu作为拉分部分的前景非常不利。

语言我就不具体改了，在这里要感谢ls板油的热情修改~~~

提纲：
1.选市长的标准是什么？
2.展开论述作者三个例子的逻辑错误，由其例子不能显而易见的得出他的结论
    a. 空气污染指数增高是因为现市政成员的忽视/不重视造成的嘛？有没有其他原因呢；
    b. 患呼吸道疾病的人*1.25 -->个人的生活习惯，吸烟与否，汽车尾气都有可能导致呼吸疾病；
    c. 工厂的增多 –> 有没有可能是C市的地理位置优越，导致投资增多，从而更多的创造就业机会。但并没因此就能得出现市政成员为了经济而牺牲环境绿化的结论。
3.总结：说服选民选举市长，必须是候选人有很强的组织能力，综合能力，而不是仅仅着着于是否是环保人员。同时指出，Frank虽然作为现市政成员，并不代表其不重视保护环境。
Before we talk about who should be elected to next mayoral, Ann Green or Frank Braun, we must know the first what performances is better as a mayor, what factors the Clearview people are really concern about is good for the city and good for people? Is it economics, health-care, zero violence commitment, and city constructing? Is the environmental problem is really leading to the primarily problem in Clearview?
第一段努力脱离模板痕迹，值得赞许，望能发展出自己的行文风格，在更加一针见血的基础上提出问题。这样issue化的开头我个人认为有点费篇幅。。。最好开门见山地点出逻辑链。

Author was trying to convince the editor that Ann Green be able to solve environmental problems just because he/she is the member of Good Earth Coalition, and conducted that Ann should be the voted as next mayor. From the example the author cited, it is hardly to know the environmental problem is the hot issue. Author only argues air pollution levels have increased. Is it really leading by current council members’ neglect, or is there have other reasons? The increased population might consume more energy which produce deleterious gas, for instance, the exhaust fumes from car. Controlling the population and even controlling the number of private car but encouraging people using public transportation instead of private car is not only the work of environmentalist but need a omnipotent politician.
第一句指出了两个驳斥点，并且让它们混杂了起来，但即便如此，后面一一批驳倒也未尝不可。但是后面的展开完全和第一句无关，开始纠缠该市环境问题并不热或者环境问题不是政府原因，举得可能反例也无足重轻，徒占篇幅。
Another is 25 percent more patients with respiratory illness were treated the local hospital. Author ascribed it totally aroused by not protecting environment. Even so, seems there is other root cause, such as the habit of personal life. Might more people joined in cigarette smoking; might the public district is not enough divided by smoking areas and non-smoking. People are free to smoking cigarettes everywhere, which second-hand smoking is more horrible than first smoking and easier to fall the respiratory illnesses. Might there was epidemical flu prevalently last year. In this conclusion, people are more need a mayor who is expert to public affairs but not only stress on environment.
以minor做首句注定了这段的loser本质，后面即使回天也会折损。一定要注意每段首句作为中心句的重要性。同时要抓住重点，不要在minor上钻牛角尖。

To these maybe add a third assumption from writer: the number of factories in Clearview has doubled during the past year, because of the current council members were not protecting the environment. The assumption make mistake of taking apart for all. Probably, town Clearview has its advantage of geography that near the port, transportation convenience. It attracts many opportunities for investment. In order to make Clearview more prospers and factories can afford more jobs for people in Clearview, current council members pass the bill to increase factories. For this reason, we cannot simply say current council members do not pay the attention to make green land.
这段继续上一段的悲剧。。。

So far, we only know Ann is member of Good Earth Coalition, while Frank is a member of town council. It hardly knows what the performance of Ann in GEC. Moreover, there is no necessarily relation between environmental problems will certainly be solved, and Ann is the member of GEC. As well, we cannot deduce that as Frank is not from GEC, he will definitely overlook the protection environment. Seems the author deliberately ignores what performances and ability should be as a mayor. Mayoral election only depend upon one narrow aspect is lack of cogence.
这段本来应该是大点，没有展开驳斥。同时缺乏结论段，缺陷十分重大。
逻辑需要加强，文章结构需要多多严整，对待argue要冷血，不能妄想将其issue化

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID: 2705887

谢谢莉香MM，也谢谢主动来改的韶华MM。我要下去仔细看看。。。

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID: 2705887

While the author persuade to vote for Ann based on he/she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, one would also wish to consider other issues before decision. Through the argument, by making a simply comparison of Ann Green, a member of the GEC and subsequently be able to solve environment problem, with Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, that is not protecting the environment, the author lists threes examples that seems logical.

However, the author only mentions Ann is from GEC, other information which indicates Ann can do better than Frank in environment-protecting are not listed. Seems the author deliberately ignores referring to other information, and gives merely scratches the surface of in what party they take part. The assumption is that because Ann is a member of GEC, Ann's ability to solve environmental problem is equally laudable. On contrast, it hardly suffices to prove his/her willingness to environment. Much more work is needed to investigate whether Ann have the ability to plan and have strong execution in environmental affairs. Even if Ann can be better to do green work than Frank, it is still leading insufficient credit to prove Ann has an excellent ability to be a political leader. Ann may not practice as well as Frank since Ann is lack of political experience, at least, we cannot get it from the argument. Nothing is mentioned about the political ability of Ann. Is this because no others abilities are worth mentioning, such as ability of organization, improving health-care system, improving education and etc, or because Ann is only good at environmental affairs, but lacking other experience? Apparently, a more specific statement about Ann's political capacity is needed in order to make the argument forceful.

Admittedly, Clearview town may have some issues in environment. As the author refers, factories have doubled, air pollution levels have increased and patients with respiratory illnesses have 25 percent more, due to the ignorance of environment by current council. However, the author is failing to consider other possible alternatives. Such alternatives may include that the citizens in Clearview haven't protected the environment themselves, lacking of spontaneity to protect environment; or that the citizens do bad habits for landfill, like not abandoning the batteries in a special garbage bin but littering everywhere, as all we know, the leakage of batteries is harmful to the soil; or that the citizens drive private cars more often but use public transportation unwillingly, as everyone knows, the gases from cars is harmful to the air as well. If so, there may be many reasons to worsen environment, and not due to delinquency of current council members. It is unfairly ascribe all the reasons to current council members. This evaluation is too brief, and too general.

Moreover, even though the current council is guilty, the author provides no evidence to substantiate the assumption that Frank is a factor in the council's decision. Whether Frank overlook the environment issues needs more investigating works. The author false assumes that membership decision represents the point of person.

In addition, the author has failed to consider protecting environment is a long-term action and needs sustainable strategy. Even if the environment has been already worsening, it cannot be turned to good in one day. Again, we could not count on one person (Ann Green) can solve all the problems immediately. It needs all the citizens be aware and alert to protect the environment. Hence, the author is too hastily to infer that the environmental problems in Clearview will be certainly solved as long as Ann undertaking mayor position.

Overall, the reasoning for selecting Ann but Frank to be next mayor seems logical. However, before any final decisions are made, the citizens should evaluate all possible alternatives and cause for environmental reasons, and consider all the abilities should a mayor qualify.

单眼皮vs肿眼皮UID: 2705887

2# 韶华竟白头

再次感谢草木MM,莉香MM的。我又做了一次修改。。。

草木MM， 能不能再指点我一下？ 【贪心啊】

optionalUID: 2718943

great job

dairymanUID: 2683905

While the author persuade to vote for Ann based on he/she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, one would also wish to consider other issues before decision. Through the argument, by making a simply comparison of Ann Green, a member of the GEC and subsequently be able to solve environment problem, with Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, that is not protecting the environment, the author lists threes examples that seems logical. （这个模板不错，没有太多模板的样子）

However, the author only mentions Ann is from GEC, other information which indicates Ann can do better than Frank in environment-protecting are not listed. Seems the author deliberately ignores referring to other information, and gives merely scratches the surface of in what party they take part.（nb句子啊） The assumption is that because Ann is a member of GEC, Ann's ability to solve environmental problem is equally laudable. On contrast, it hardly suffices to prove his/her willingness to environment. Much more work is needed to investigate whether Ann have the ability to plan and have strong execution in environmental affairs. Even if Ann can be better to do green work than Frank, it is still leading insufficient credit to prove Ann has an excellent ability to be a political leader. Ann may not practice as well as Frank since Ann is lack of political experience, at least, we cannot get it from the argument. Nothing is mentioned about the political ability of Ann. Is this because no others abilities are worth mentioning, such as ability of organization, improving health-care system, improving education and etc, or because Ann is only good at environmental affairs, but lacking other experience? Apparently, a more specific statement about Ann's political capacity is needed in order to make the argument forceful.

Admittedly, Clearview town may have some issues in environment. As the author refers, factories have doubled, air pollution levels have increased and patients with respiratory illnesses have 25 percent more, due to the ignorance of environment by current council. However, the author is failing to consider other possible alternatives. Such alternatives may include that the citizens in Clearview haven't protected the environment themselves, lacking of spontaneity to protect environment; or that the citizens do bad habits for landfill, like not abandoning the batteries in a special garbage bin but littering everywhere, as all we know, the leakage of batteries is harmful to the soil; or that the citizens drive private cars more often but use public transportation unwillingly, as everyone knows, the gases from cars is harmful to the air as well. If so, there may be many reasons to worsen environment, and not due to delinquency of current council members. It is unfairly ascribe all the reasons to current council members. This evaluation is too brief, and too general.

Moreover, even though the current council is guilty, the author provides no evidence to substantiate the assumption that Frank is a factor in the council's decision. Whether Frank overlook the environment issues needs more investigating works. The author false assumes that membership decision represents the point of person.

In addition, the author has failed to consider protecting environment is a long-term action and needs sustainable strategy. Even if the environment has been already worsening, it cannot be turned to good in one day. Again, we could not count on one person (Ann Green) can solve all the problems immediately. It needs all the citizens be aware and alert to protect the environment. Hence, the author is too hastily to infer that the environmental problems in Clearview will be certainly solved as long as Ann undertaking mayor position. （这段不错，好原因）

Overall, the reasoning for selecting Ann but （not？）Frank to be next mayor seems logical. However, before any final decisions are made, the citizens should evaluate all possible alternatives and cause for environmental reasons, and consider all the abilities should a mayor qualify.
这个文章改了，感觉逻辑上没问题了，不过模板化似乎挺严重啊……