Argument7

jinziqiUID: 2387034

TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - 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."
计时写的，后来改过。

The arguer reckons that people in Clearview should vote for Ann Green, instead of Frank Braun, because people now are not protecting the environment in Clearview town. For one thing, the air pollution level has doubled. For another, the number of people who got respiratory illness has been increased. The reason he gives seems to be supportive to his statement, but if we think more, we can find something wrong in logic.

The arguer fails to point out the reason why the air pollution level has increased. Since the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, the air pollution will be more severe for sure. So, he should find a relationship between the increasing level of air pollution and the increasing number of the factories during last two years and then he will know whether Frank Braun did a good job. It is possible that even though the number of factories is doubled, but the air pollution levels have not been increased that much than last year. So, the arguer cannot simply conclude that the problem of the air pollution is more sever.

Also, even though people who have respiratory illnesses are more than last year, it may be because the increasing number of the factories and the lasting effect on people respiratory system during the past years. People were living in a bad environment for many years. We don't know what kind of people got respiratory illnesses. They may be new comers, long living residents, babies, or even the older, so we should analyze the number 25 percent deeper and get a conclusion. On the other hand, the reason why people get respiratory illnesses may have alternative explanation. It is may be result from some kind of food, or something else, that makes people get illnesses. So, the arguer should point out the true reason why people became sick to make his opinion sounder.

What's more, the arguer did not prove what the policy will be putted out by Ann Green, so we cannot make sure that he will solve the environmental problems. Even he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, the arguer did not tell us how Ann Green worked there and what kind of achievement he got, which is the most important thing that make people convinced. So, unless the arguer shows us these things, we cannot elect Ann Green.

To sum up, the arguer fails to give more reasonable explanation why we should elect Ann Green instead, and his reason lacks of more analysis. To make his statement strong, he should investigate the reason why the air pollution levels and the number of sick people have been increased. To strengthen his opinion, he should introduce more about Ann Green and then make people convinced that he will certainly solve the problem of the pollution.

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

不好意思，网络很卡，高级回复都打不开，所以主要从全文逻辑结构的把握上给你一些建议。

题目的逻辑思路：
去年C的工厂数量增加了一倍，空气污染严重，当地医院治疗的患呼吸道疾病的人多了25%→现在C的town council的members不保护环境→不应该选作为town council member的FB做市长
AG是Good Earth Coalition的member→AG能解决C的环境问题→应该选AG当市长

文章的反驳思路应该是：
1. C的工厂数量加倍，空气污染严重，当地医院患呼吸道疾病的病人增加并不一定是由members不保护环境引起的。可能患呼吸道疾病的病人根本不是当地人，或者增加的25%只是因为C的人口数量上升了，或者呼吸道疾病不是由空气污染引起的。可能members采取了很多措施来保护环境，但由于受到经济发展和人口水平的制约，虽然取得了一定成效但不能完全消除污染。（反驳第一个→）
2. 即使现在的council member不保护环境，不代表FB就不会保护好环境
3. AG是Good Earth Coalition的member不代表她能解决C的环境问题，题目中没有指出AG以前的任何环境保护方面的贡献；即使AG能解决好环境问题，她也不一定能当市长，市长除了解决环境问题，还要解决很多其他问题。

he arguer reckons that people in Clearview should vote for Ann Green, instead of Frank Braun, because people now are not protecting the environment in Clearview town.（这里有一个理解上的错误，题目是说C的council member没保护好环境，不是说C的people） For one thing, the air pollution level has doubled. For another, the number of people who got respiratory illness has been increased. The reason he gives seems to be supportive to his statement, but if we think more, we can find something wrong in logic.（尽量不要出现we这种第一人称的词）

第一段前面都是在重复题目里面的话，除了告诉读者你要开始论证了，没有别的意义，而且题目里面的内容rater比你清楚，不需要这样去重复。开头的正确写法应该是直接指出文章的逻辑错误，而在说明文章逻辑错误的同时，暗示你自己这篇argument的论证顺序和结构，让rater看了一目了然。关于A的开头你可以去版上搜索666版主的argument开头那篇文章，里面介绍地很详细。

你的逻辑点是找出了三个，但是主要逻辑点选择存在问题，而出问题的一个重要原因是你对town council member的理解存在问题，再对照我上面的分析仔细取舍一下。

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

不好意思，网络很卡，高级回复都打不开，所以主要从全文逻辑结构的把握上给你一些建议。

题目的逻辑思路：
去年C的工厂数量增加了一倍，空气污染严重，当地医院治疗的患呼吸道疾病的人多了25%→现在C的town council的members不保护环境→不应该选作为town council member的FB做市长
AG是Good Earth Coalition的member→AG能解决C的环境问题→应该选AG当市长

文章的反驳思路应该是：
1. C的工厂数量加倍，空气污染严重，当地医院患呼吸道疾病的病人增加并不一定是由members不保护环境引起的。可能患呼吸道疾

jinziqiUID: 2387034

经指点后，突然发现这篇文章可攻击的太多了...
1.工厂数量增加，污染等级提升，患有呼吸疾病的人数增多都不一定说明是town council的问题
2.就算是town council的问题也不一定是FB的问题
3.没有理由说明AG满足当市长的条件，一定可以解决污染问题
只是发现并不是每一点都能说的那么清楚，找到更通俗的解释...o(╯□╰)o
况且开头就要将所有逻辑顺序就铺垫好，结尾还要总结提出改进办法，语言还不要重复。。
( ⊙ o ⊙ )啊！。。。