Argument 7_第三次作业求拍_7天倒计时

pigaretUID: 2749103

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."
WORDS: 451
TIME: 00:38:00
DATE: 2010/2/5 10:19:11

The argument recommends Ann Green instead of Frank Braun to be elected as the next mayor. In supporting the statement, the editorial blames the council as responsible for the occurring environmental problems and correlates Ann's position in Good Earth Coalition with good prospects of solving these problems. I find the claim totally unconvincing in several aspects.

To begin with, whether the pollution is severe enough to affect the wellbeing of the citizens is not given any evidence. Without the base number of how many factories were and that of the patients with environmental-related ailments, we can hardly judge that the double in rise and increased 25 percent contribute a large number. In addition, in allowing a little fraction of environment hazard, the state
might in return have its economy developed which had actually raised the living standards of its citizens. In fact it is the general performance rather than a single aspect of the council that we should base our voting choice on. What is the point of pin-pointing fingers to a council who has offered better life to its people?

Also, whether members of Clearview town council should be responsible for the changes of environment is doubtful. The speaker should provide us with the increasing rates rather than percentages since it could not compare the situation of the time being with that in the past. There might be a good chance that the environment problems increased at a lower speed compared to that happened decades ago. That is to say, the Clearview town council actually helps to provide a better environment instead of ruining it.

Furthermore, given that the Clearview town council really makes unwise decisions on evironmental protection, there is no credence given to prove Ann a suitable person only because she works for a party which has an environmentally friendly name. No details are provided concerning what Good Earth Coalition focuses and what their past record shows. Even if we are lucky enough to have a party which emphasizes environmental problems, is Ann the big person in the group who really directs the party to its goals? Even if the polluting issues have been solved. What evidence would show there will be no other big problems such as economic downturn and unemployment which outweighs the benefits? Will the new party lay off all the workers in whatever industries which emit carbondioxide?

In sum, the residents of Clearview can hardly be impressed by the opinion the newspaper gives. As long as they do not consider pollution as a real big problem and are satisfied with Frank Braun's contributions in other aspects, it will be difficult to introduce a new candidate without any detailed credence to be the citizens' choice.

ginorUID: 2610959

The argument recommends Ann Green instead of Frank Braun to be elected as the next mayor. In supporting the statement, the editorial blames the council as responsible for the occurring environmental problems and correlates Ann's position in Good Earth Coalition with good prospects of solving these problems. I find the claim totally unconvincing in several aspects.

To begin with, whether the pollution【感觉你跳入了他设的一个陷阱，pollution固然是存在了，但起因不明确，也许是因为汽车排气,未必是工厂导致】is severe enough to affect the wellbeing of the citizens is not given any evidence. Without the base number of how many factories were and that of the patients with environmental-related ailments【原题提及了air pollution和呼吸病，目的就是为了将两者串上关系赖在工厂上，但如果质问病人的来历，如`病人不是当地人，只是来看病的，撇清与工厂的关系，便能反咬他一口】, we can hardly judge that the double in rise and increased 25 percent contribute a large number. In addition, in allowing a little fraction of environment hazard, the state
might in return have its economy developed which had actually raised the living standards of its citizens. In fact it is the general performance rather than a single aspect of the council that we should base our voting choice on. What is the point of pin-pointing fingers to a council who has offered better life to its people?【私认为，这有点像在强辩，且有了让步的感觉，先污染后治理，为了经济放弃环境？】

Also, whether members of Clearview town council should be responsible for the changes of environment is doubtful. The speaker should provide us with the increasing rates rather than percentages 【这个percentage不明所指，25%】 since it could not compare the situation of the time being with that in the past. There might be a good chance that the environment problems increased at a lower speed compared to that happened decades【工厂去年才起，怎么就跳到十年前去了？】 ago. That is to say【改might to mean好些，毕竟是你的猜测的他因而非事实】, the Clearview town council actually helps to provide a better environment instead of ruining it.

Furthermore, given【这是“让步”，让步的前提是“承认”，你前文的攻击并没有涉及攻击“……”的内容，这个让步有断层，用得不合理（个人认为）】 that the Clearview town council really “makes unwise decisions on evironmental protection”, there is no credence【n.相信，信任？？？？evidence吧】 given to prove Ann a suitable person only because she works for a party which has an environmentally friendly name. No details are provided concerning what Good Earth Coalition focuses and what their past record shows. Even if we are lucky enough to have a party which emphasizes environmental problems, is Ann the big【big？important好些吧】 person in the group who really directs the party to its goals? Even if the polluting issues have been solved.【原题有个gratuitous assumption就是no evidence is offered to demonstrate
that Ann promise and capable to deal with environmental problems可以攻击，人家都还没答应呢，就直接跳到解决完了……】 What evidence would show there will be no other big problems such as economic downturn and unemployment which outweighs the benefits? Will the new party lay off all the workers in whatever industries which emit carbondioxide?【之前一句还是关于她是否有管理能力，这一句突然又跳到她的解决方针上，这种跳跃式思维……这种颇为极端的猜测，我想鉴于评分员素有训练应该扛得住orz……】

In sum, the residents of Clearview can hardly be impressed by the opinion the newspaper gives. As long as they do not consider pollution as a real big problem and are satisfied with Frank Braun's contributions in other aspects, it will be difficult to introduce a new candidate without any detailed credence to be the citizens' choice.

结：读完后，觉得你能找到一些攻击点，但没有理顺整个逻辑，鉴于所剩的时间有限建议你过过高频题整理下思路吧。

后话，都剩7天了，你限时来得及写完吗？