ARGUMENT112 by emteddybear-求拍，有拍必回，谢谢

emteddybearUID: 2699606

ARGUMENT112:
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."
分析：
海湾联盟组织组织建的理由：填海会破坏潮汐和伤害野生动物
机场的承诺：被允许建跑道就出资修复100英亩被工业损耗的湿地
理由：1.机场延误的问题应该被解决（隐含如果建跑道就能改善延误）
2.该计划的湿地恢复部分可以使海湾的环境得到彻底改善而不是被破坏。（要狠批）
1+2——>结论：该计划应该被采纳
提纲：1.理由1：机场延误的原因有可能不是跑道不够的原因，也有可能是机场管理不够科学，或者位于海湾地区，很容易受天气的影响
2.理由2：（1）、没有说明对填充900英亩海域对环境带来的危害和恢复1000英亩湿地所带来的好处的对比。（2）、也许即使你出钱恢复了，你的恢复技术达不到，也不能帮助改善环境。


Based on two insufficient reasons, the arguer proposes to adopt the airport's plan to build new runways to increase capacity only can by filling in 900 acres of the bay where the airport located. It is so arbitrary to make such conclusion and I will give some analysis about the two reasons in turn.

Firstly, as for the arguer's first reason-it is necessary to reduce the flight delays-there is an implicit interference, which is that if the airport builds new runways, the capacity will be increase and the flight delays will be changed better. I think the arguer makes a mistake about the cause and effect, because the capacity may be not the only reason of flight delay. There might be other respects which cause the flight delay, such as bad management of the airport's manager. What's more, Franklin Airport is on a bay, where the weather might be an important element. So it is so unadvisable to build new runways only because of flight delay.

Secondly, the arguer lists the second reason that the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt. This statement is totally lack of evidence, and in my experience, it is completely wrong. For one thing, without the database of the wetlands' damage, we can't make a conclusion that whether and in what degree the wetlands can be restored, even though Franklin Airport can provide enough money. Because technology is a crucial problem. The pollution by some special industrialization is an international problem, which has not been solved yet. For another thing, the arguer does not provide any materials of the comparison between the hurts by filling in 900 acres of the bay and the benefits by restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands. If they fill the bay, the tidal patterns and harm wildlife will be disrupted. And there is no one can guarantee that the wetlands or even restored wetlands can help to address this disruption, especially for the tidal patterns, which relate mainly with the bay. And I think it is not worth to change a natural bay with wetlands which is uncertainly about its usage.

In sum, it is unwise to adopt the airport's plan to build new runways to increase capacity if we cannot do anything but do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay.

jinziqiUID: 2387034

Based on two insufficient reasons, the arguer proposes to adopt the airport's plan to build new runways to increase capacity only can by filling in 900 acres of the bay where the airport located. It is so arbitrary to make such conclusion and I will give some analysis about the two reasons in turn.（可以把2个原因在首段简要地说一下，因为第一句就写了two insufficient reasons，有点唐突。简要说明以后会比较言之有物吧。然后，最好不要重复原文的句子，可以稍微改写一下，虽然我知道这点但是经常改写不出来…呵呵）

Firstly, as for the arguer's first reason-it is necessary to reduce the flight delays-there is an implicit interference, which is that if the airport builds new runways, the capacity will be increase (increased) and the flight delays will be changed better (飞机延误将被改变得更好，感觉有些不太通顺the phenomenon of flight delays will be improved better). I think the arguer makes a mistake about the cause and effect, because the capacity may be not the only reason of flight delay. There might be other respects (尊重? aspects? reasons?) which cause the flight delay, such as bad management of the airport's manager (staff). What's more, Franklin Airport is on a bay, where the weather might be an important element. So it is so unadvisable to build new runways only because of flight delay.
本段是对作者第一个原因进行攻击，因为能力可能不是飞机延误的唯一原因，所以作者犯了一个因果关系的错误。可能是管理问题或者天气原因。

Secondly, the arguer lists the second reason that the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt. This statement is totally lack of evidence (去掉is，变成lacks), and in my experience, it is completely wrong. For one thing, without the database of the wetlands' damage, we can't make a conclusion that whether and in what degree the wetlands can be restored, even though Franklin Airport can provide enough money. Because (去掉because前面那个句号，小写b) technology is a crucial problem. The pollution (made) by some special industrialization is an international problem, which has not been solved yet. (这句是否有点绝对..之后可以再详细阐述一下) For another thing (我怎么记得是for one thing, for another…), the arguer does not provide any materials of the comparison between the hurts by filling in 900 acres of the bay and the benefits by restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands. If they fill the bay, the tidal patterns and harm wildlife will be disrupted. And there is no one can guarantee that the wetlands or even restored wetlands can help to address (这里的address是什么意思?) this disruption, especially for the tidal patterns, which relate mainly with (is mainly related to) the bay. And I think it is not worth (worthy + to do sth. /Worth + doing sth.) to change a natural bay with wetlands which is uncertainly about its usage.

作者第二个原因缺少证据。没有湿地损坏的数据库，我们不能得出结论湿地可以被恢复，尽管FA可以提供足够的钱，但是技术水平也许有限。另外，作者没有提供填埋900acres和restoration1000acres的比较材料，如果填埋，会影响tidal patterns and wildlife，没有人能保证wetlands能解决问题。因为tidal pattern主要和bay有关，改变bay不值得。

In sum, it is unwise to adopt the airport's plan to build new runways to increase capacity if we cannot do anything but do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay.
如果我们只能填埋，那么建造新的跑道就不明智。
应该是如果我们不能证明建造跑道一定能解决飞机延误的问题，我们就不应该建造跑道；并且证明restoration能对bay’s environment有所帮助。


文中还可以讨论一下，tidal pattern问题能不能被解决，如果不能是不是还会因为天气原因而导致飞机延误。
总体思路是对的，如果第三段的2个原因能都再深入一些，中间阐述的就有3段了，字数就多了。个人意见呵呵

dayanxiayehUID: 2758697

Based on two insufficient reasons, the arguer proposes to adopt the airport's plan to build new runways to increase capacity only can by filling in 900 acres of the bay where the airport located. It is so arbitrary to make such conclusion and I will give some analysis about the two reasons in turn.

Firstly, as for the arguer's first reason-it is necessary to reduce the flight delays-there is an implicit interference, which is that if the airport builds new runways, the capacity will be increase and the flight delays will be changed better（be/get better）. I think the arguer makes a mistake about the cause and effect, because the capacity may be not the only reason of flight delay. There might be other respects which cause the flight delay, such as bad management of the airport's manager. What's more, Franklin Airport is on a bay, where the weather might be an important element. So it is so unadvisable to build new runways only because of flight delay.(可以有更好的表达方式：The arguer's recommendation depends on the assumption that no facters other than the low capacity caused flight delay.However commen sence inform us that this assumption is a poor one.A myraid of other facters,including%%%or***might be the cause of flight delays.To be specific the weather in FA may be rainy and wild windy.Without ruling out these and other possible causes ,the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that only by increase the runways can reduce the flight delay. )

dayanxiayehUID: 2758697

If they fill the bay, the tidal patterns and harm （harm去掉）wildlife will be disrupted.

dayanxiayehUID: 2758697

In sum, it is unwise to adopt the airport's plan to build new runways to increase capacity if we cannot do anything but do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay.
这里有逻辑问题，问题不是建跑道，而是填海。题里说to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay这里有一个绝对词汇It‘s too arbitry to say that ....

emteddybearUID: 2699606

谢谢指正，你的语言确实比我好很多
而且对于结尾，说得很对
看来我的逻辑思维还是有待提高啊
5# dayanxiayeh

emteddybearUID: 2699606

消化了好久，谢谢jinziqi &dayanxiayeh，
大改了一下：
In this argument, the arguer proposes to adopt Franklin Airport's plan to build new runways to increase its capacity, because it is worried about its bad fight delay and the managers of the airport promise that they can fund to restore the industrial damaged wetlands. But considering that if this plan is accepted, the bay where the airport located will be filled 900 acres, by which it would disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. So it needs more consideration to make such decision, and I will give some analysis about the two reasons in turn.


Firstly, as for the arguer's first reason-it is necessary to reduce the flight delays-there is an implicit interference, which is that if the airport builds new runways, the capacity will be increased and the phenomenon of flight delays will be improved better. The arguer’s recommendation depends on the assumption that no factor other than low capacity causes flight delay. But common sense informs us that this assumption is a poor one. A myriad of other factors, including bad management of the airport's manager or weather might be the cause of fight delay. To be specific the weather in FA may be rainy and wild windy. Without ruling out these and other causes, the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that only by increase the runway can reduce the flight delay.
Secondly, the arguer lists the second reason that the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt. This statement totally lacks evidence, and in my experience, it is completely wrong(这里会不会有点太绝对了呢). For one thing, without the database of the wetlands' damage, we can't make a conclusion that whether and in what degree the wetlands can be restored, even though Franklin Airport can provide enough money. It is common knowledge that environment problems is so hard that people have not issued a proper method to deal with it yet. What’s more, pollution especially caused by industry is an irreversible progress in general. For another, the arguer does not provide any materials of the comparison between the hurts by filling in 900 acres of the bay and the benefits by restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands. If they fill the bay, the tidal patterns and wildlife will be disrupted. And there is no one can guarantee that the wetlands or even restored wetlands can help to address this disruption, especially for the tidal patterns, which is mainly related to the bay. And I think it is not worthy to change a natural bay with wetlands which is uncertainly about its usage.

In sum, it is unwise to fill in 900 acres of the bay to deal with flight delay. It pays too dear for it.