小妹新写的一篇Argumentation , 希望有兴趣的同学帮小妹我改一下，谢谢啦! 互相学习~~

yingying0512UID: 2626306

:loveliness: Topic: IN the next mayoral election,residents of Clesrview shloud vote for Ann Green, who is a menmber of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a memeber 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 has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."

The notion that choosing Ann Green will protect and improve the environment in Clearview seems at the first glance to be an obvious conclusion. After all the current government are not  protecting the environment in the city and the environmental problems has became severe in the present days which cause increasing patients with respiratory illnesses. However,the conclusion that the environmental problems in Clearview will be solved are happened in the future and there are many necessitates we need to solve the environmental problems.

First of all, as it mentioned in the argument the govenment are not protecting the environment. But we can not foresee that the current government will not take some appropriate actions to protect the environment in Clearview in their next tenure of office. Probably they only pay attention to something more important and urged to be solved such as financial problems and education development or complete social guarantee system in their current term. When those are settled , the government can solve the environmental problems more quickly and efficiently.

As we can see that it is the current government which are not take measures to preventing pollution, not the man Frank Braun. He is only a member of the current government. The decisionsof the government is made by its whole members instead of one person, that the environmental problems can not be caused by Frank Braun only , thus his absence from the government will have nothing to do with solving the environmental problems.

Further more, we know nothing about Ann Green, and the argument never mentioned that he had come up with some useful measures to improve the environment in Clearview and he is not an expert on environment, either. So there is no support that he will make the situations of Clearview better. On the other hand, solving the environmental problems need more than one person,which conclude finance support, working men, some effective measures and so on. Only these had been gathered, the problems of the environment in Clearview could be tackled.

minor_majorUID: 2502168

首先，能告诉我你这个是第几个ARGUMENT么？

yingying0512UID: 2626306

我的上面是argu7，是当时新东方发的书，issue的顺序就和新的不大一样，不知道这个和你看的是不是一样的。

ShaylenUID: 2700072

楼主你的题目就写错了

argument……

minor_majorUID: 2502168

1# yingying0512
First of all, as it mentioned in the argument(这是模版化的语言，没有大意义，并且会浪费宝贵的时间，以后建议可以精简下） the govenment are notprotecting the environment. But we can not foresee that the currentgovernment will not take some appropriate actions to protect theenvironment in Clearview in their next tenure of office（为什么不能预见，人家文章说了，XX是地球协会的啊，不就应该保护么？关键的反驳点我感觉选择的不好）. Probably theyonly pay attention to something more important and urged to be solvedsuch as financial problems and education development or complete socialguarantee system in their current term（我感觉这里又一个逻辑跳跃，应该是，即使XX会主张保护环境，但是也许他不能把这个放在首位，有很多其他的更URGE的事情要去处理，比如。。。）. When those are settled , thegovernment can solve the environmental problems more quickly andefficiently.（这个后面少了结果，要倒钩出这个导致的结果是于原文想违背的，这样才算达到质疑，反驳的目的）

言语有点重，望谅解
个人拙见，仅供参考

建议多改改，看看别人的文章，写A前理清逻辑链~

加油~