Sazerac argument112--by yanghan1167

yanghan1167UID: 2722895

112 The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the Franklin City Council.                    
"Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt."
【论点】：
Adopt the airport management’s proposal to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay.
【论据】：
1. it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization.
2. it is necessary to reduce the flight delays.
居委会并不同意FA的海湾用地的申请：可能影响海潮的规律，破坏海湾的生态。
FA：由航班延误而声名狼藉，可见其信誉一般；
    其声称要占用900英亩的海湾地扩建机场，以降低航班的延误率；
    其承诺如果被批准，则成立基金恢复1000英亩的先前被工业破坏的湿地。

【WORDS】: 588    【TIME】: 2h   【DATE】: 2010-1-3
The Franklin Airport (FA) recommends that in order to eliminating their notorious flight delays the Franklin City Council should admits FA to exploit more 900 acres of the bay. Considering utilizing the bay, the Franklin City Council dissents that it may lead to disaster after math, for example, disrupt tidal patterns and harms wildlife, the bay. FA arguments rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that enlarge FA's runways would relieve their pressure on flight delays. Admittly, flight delays may caused by deficiency runways for flight to land and launch, with an enlarge of 900 acres inevitably will decrease this partly, not for all. There must be quite a massive causes to flight delay. Perhaps FA still has not recognized its scale, of which passenger transaction capacity, this mislead to drawing passengers indefinite to its side, namely, FA places a low priority on passengers' experience; or perhaps there exists some problems in its management in flight dispacthing. Lacking dearer evidence that FA's flight delay successfully settled partly by other means which feasible analysis has been done to down, FA cannot expect us to take seriously the claim for applying another 900 acres would improve its flight delay programs.

Similarly, the fact that FA is notorious for flight delay without any modifying measures to retrieve its reputation, lends no support to the acceptance in the argument. As a servicing department, the degree of satisfaction from it's passengers should placed in the first-line, while FA are not. Since FA fails to consider this and rule out these and other alternative explanations for the improvements, I find the FA's claim should receive credit unconvincing. FA's claim to fund the wetlands restoration part still remains uncertainty.

Even if FA is responsible for funding the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization, FA's claim that exchanged between 1,000 acres damaged wetlands and 900 acres of new bay lands will do good other than hurt to the bay's environment, is controversial. Really hard to persuade man that exploiting of 900 acres, land at this scale is large enough to have an inestimable harm to the bay's entironment, will have no infuence on the environment. At least plane's overbearing noise cannot be neglected. Utilizing this area for commercial operation, no wonder that a series of other relative department will follow up, thus, to which massive people's arriving here lead to inmensly presure. In addition, FA promise to fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands, without claiming to which degree this area will be restored. It is entirely possible that even if FA fund the restoration but with no supervisement, they can misapproperation this funds, thus, their claim result in illusory. Neverlethless, restoration of 1,000 acres damaged wetlands doesnot stay equality with utilizing 900 acres of fully new undeveloped area. FA is trying to mix these two field with digital logic.

In sum, FA fails to provide key evidence needed to support ist claim. To strenghen that claim FA must show that its reputation--including ruined by flight delays--have so remarkable improvement that can convincing people no deceive in its claim, and that ecology environment of this 900 acres need not to have the risk of being damaged. FA must also provide success stories-- about other types of business--to convice me that FA's reputation will work for any business.