【草莓酱拌饭组】1ARGUMENT7 by swolf

swolf54UID: 2421931

诶。。。。愧疚愧疚，这星期学校又是运动会又是其他比赛的，迟迟未能完成作业。。。赶在末班车把作业贴上了，写得很郁闷。。那些词和句都感觉老掉牙了:mad:


In the letter, the author advocates the citizens to vote for Ann Greenrather than Frank Braun in the next mayoral election. He raised several reasonsto support his proposition, however, most of which are not convincing enough.
Firstly, he points out that Ann Green is a member of the Good EarthCoalition, while Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council, whichassumed to be performing badly in protecting our environment. But, obviously,this is not a sound proof. On one hand, though Ann Green is in membership ofGood Earth Coalition, there is no evidence that she have taken any action toprotect our environment. On the other hand, even if the Clearview town councildo didn’t take enough care of the environment and regulate the pollutingbehavior effectively, it doesn't indicate that Frank Braun should take all responsibilityfor this. There is good possibility that other members of the council should undertakethe obligation of this instead of Frank Braun .
Secondly, it remains to be a mystic on whether Clearview is facing asevere environmental problem. The letter claims that the increase in number offactories is an evidence for the pollution. Nevertheless, the development ofindustry and economy will also contribute to this. It is naturally to seteconomic development, which will benefit everyone, as a primary goal for thecouncil of this city. Indeed, citizens’ living
standard have improved in this procedure. Asthe argument goes, increasing in air pollution is another proof. However, thismay be caused by other regions near our city, since air contaminant can flow toeverywhere.
Thirdly, the author takes the percentage of respiratory patients asanother evidence, which is not convincing either. We should be noticed that thechange in percentage may be caused by the decline of other illnesses, whichwill increase the percentage of respiratory one in turn. Thus, we could notperceive the wrong correlation between air pollution and respiratory illnesses assertively
In the end, the author believes that the environmental problems inClearview will certainly be solved if we elect Ann green. This is rather ridiculoussince there are more preparations need to be done to solve the environment problemrather than a single slogan.

swolf54UID: 2421931

改了一遍，
In the letter, the author advocates the citizens to vote for Ann Greenrather than Frank Braun in the next mayoral election. He raised several reasons to support his proposition, however, most of which are not convincing enough.
The author starts off by pointing out that Ann Green is a member of the Good EarthCoalition, while Frank Braun comes from the Clearview town council, which assumed to be performing badly in the environment protection. But, obviously, this is not a sound proof. On one hand, though Ann Green is in membership of Good Earth Coalition, it doesn’t indicate that she will take effective protection action in her tenure. On the other hand, even if the Clearview town council didn’t take enough care of the environment and regulate the polluting behavior rigorously, it doesn't mean that Frank Braun should take all the responsibility. Instead,   other members of the council maybe should undertake more obligation than Frank Braun.
Another argument raised in the letter is Clearview is facing severe environmental problem. It claims that the increase in number of factories is an evidence for the pollution. Nevertheless, the development of industry and economy will also contribute to this. More factories is not equal to more pollution, which has been tested as a vivid example in Northern European countries.
As the argument goes, increasing in air pollution is another proof for the pollution problem. However, this may be caused by other regions near our city, since air contaminant can flow to everywhere.
Furthermore, the author takes the percentage of respiratory patients as another proof, which is not convincing either. We should notice that change in percentage may be caused by the decline of other illnesses, which will increase the percentage of respiratory one in turn. Thus, we could not perceive the not existing correlation between air pollution and respiratory illnesses assertively
In the end, the author believes that the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved if we elect Ann green. This is more doubtful for us, since it is well-known that environmental protection needs more works than fancy slogans.

dairymanUID: 2683905

先写个中文提纲嘛，我看看你中文思路，改英文的好辛苦啊……

swolf54UID: 2421931

先写个中文提纲嘛，我看看你中文思路，改英文的好辛苦啊……
dairyman 发表于 2009-11-2 17:58

明天写，明天写，今天我先改别人的。话说你好懒啊~

dairymanUID: 2683905

我还是喜欢你这个小老鼠

swolf54UID: 2421931

先写个中文提纲嘛，我看看你中文思路，改英文的好辛苦啊……
dairyman 发表于 2009-11-2 17:58

根据您老指示，提纲在下：
1、虽然AnnGreen是GoodEarthCoalition的成员，这并不代表着她会在上任后就采取措施保护环境；假设当地有污染，身为
town council成员的FrankBraun也不一定就要负主要责任
2、工厂数量的增加≠污染的增加，工厂数量增加有可能是经济发展的结果
3、空气污染有可能由周围城市造成（空气污染物易流动）
4、呼吸系统病人比例增加有可能是因为其他类型病人比例减少，比例不代表绝对数量
5、环保需要大量的准备和工作，不是简单的口号就能办到的，所以作者的呼吁很苍白

dairymanUID: 2683905

根据您老指示，提纲在下：
1、虽然AnnGreen是GoodEarthCoalition的成员，这并不代表着她会在上任后（重点就是讨论她有没有资格上任，现在就假设她上任了，为时尚早吧？）就采取措施保护环境（下面呢？即便保护环境，也不一定有资格当市长，这个是重点啊，怎么不说？）；假设当地有污染(现在就假设有污染了？后面对于污染的假设呢？2，3都是对污染的假设反驳，你开头就假设有污染，太快了。这种假设本身就是让步，污染问题最好自己分一条，污染只是作者一个假设而已，还有其他假设呢)，身为
town council成员的FrankBraun也不一定就要负主要责任（这个对）
2、工厂数量的增加≠污染的增加，工厂数量增加有可能是经济发展的结果
3、空气污染有可能由周围城市造成（空气污染物易流动）
4、呼吸系统病人比例增加有可能是因为其他类型病人比例减少，比例不代表绝对数量（这个有理，是反驳呼吸系统病这一假设的好论断）
5、环保需要大量的准备和工作，不是简单的口号就能办到的，所以作者的呼吁很苍白（你开头就说了，不代表她会上任后就采取措施保护，现在再说环保不简单，有没有重复了？）
看了中文提纲，感觉问题很大，你似乎看了别人很多提纲，然后自己一条一条十分有力地批驳，但是这些驳论没有从你的大脑里形成很有逻辑链地反驳，所以感觉上不是很严谨哦。

可以选择性忽视我，不过很多时候我还是有评价亮点的~~

swolf54UID: 2421931

7# dairyman
恩。。。果然果然，这篇文章确实收到了别人思路的影响，谢谢您啦~~好多事情自己看根本注意不到~我再改改！

Donna.#UID: 2707837

芊芊，很抱歉这麽久才批你的作文，总体来说， 文章语言很简练，个别词用的很棒，我把我喜欢的用绿色的标注，错误的语法（个人拙见）用红色的。
In the letter, the author advocates the citizens to vote for Ann Greenrather than(rather than) Frank Braun in the next mayoral election. He raised several reasons to support his proposition, however, most of which are not convincing enough.开篇最好点出逻辑错误，而且既然是驳论文要在开始树立好靶子！这个开头有些单薄。

The author starts off by pointing out that Ann Green is a member of the Good EarthCoalition, while Frank Braun comes from the Clearview town council, which（who) assumed to be performing badly in the environment protection. But, obviously, this is not a sound proof. On one hand, though Ann Green is in membership of Good Earth Coalition, it doesn’t最好换成书面语（does not) indicate that she will take effective protection action in her tenure. On the other hand, even if the Clearview town council didn’t take enough care of the environment and regulate the polluting behavior rigorously, it doesn't 同上mean that Frank Braun should take all the responsibility. Instead,   other members of the council maybe should 二选一吧？undertake more obligation than Frank Braun.

Another argument (就一个argument啊？） raised in the letter is Clearview is facing severe environmental problem. It claims that the increase in number of factories is an evidence for the pollution. Nevertheless, the development of industry and economy will also contribute to this（这个例举它因没说到点子上，不能说明factories不是充分条件，而且industry的增长也有factory的事啊）. More factories is not equal to more pollution, which has been tested as a vivid example in Northern European countries.

As the argument goes, increasing in air pollution is another proof for the pollution problem. However, this may be caused by other regions near our city, since air contaminant can flow to everywhere.（这个自成一段没必要， 不如何上一段放一起， 上一段不也是pollution的例举它因吗？）

Furthermore, the author takes the percentage of respiratory patients（感觉再加上incresing好一些) as another proof, which is not convincing either. We should notice that change in percentage may be caused by the decline of other illnesses, which will increase the percentage of respiratory one in turn. Thus, we could not perceive the not existing correlation between air pollution and respiratory illnesses assertively（这个词改用在the author 上, 我们的结论应该是尽量真实的，改为the authour cannot convince me the existing correlation between air pollution and repiratroy illnesses.如何？）
In the end, the author believes that the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved if we elect Ann green. This is more doubtful for us, since it is well-known that environmental protection needs more works than fancy slogans.（最后一段貌似又在驳论新的逻辑错误，与结尾无关，最好与第一段照应上，而且要全面总结）