Argument7 第四作业 by 6号

hhfboyUID: 2749089

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."


The author recommends that people should vote for Ann Green(AG) for his identification as a member of Good Earth Coalition(GEC) rather than the Frank Braun(FB) that a member of Clearview town council(CTC) . To support his recommendation, he argues that the current CTC are not preventing environment, whereas FB is one of them. However, the argument relied on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

In the first place, although AG is a member of the GEC, it is not the extent that he is an environmental protector, whereas FB is viewed as a destroyer of our environment just because of he is a member of CTC. It is entirely possible that FB have tried his best to suggest the recent council to protect environment, but without others assistances, his effort is unavailable at last. On the other hand, AG is a member of GEC, but he has little interest in protecting environment. Even if AG is an environmental protector, whether he has ability to make an all-round plan to solve the environmental problems is still unknown. Perhaps Without experience on this field, he hardly takes effective actions.

In the second place, to support his assumption that the recent council are not protecting our environment, the author cites a evidence that the factories in Clearview have two times than last year, while the air pollution levels have increased. However, it is unfairly assumes that last year's air pollution was due to the factories produced rather than other factors. Perhaps, as the car's market abound, the private cars had increased. Therefore, these cars will produce air-borne emission what may be the primary factors to increase the pollution levels. Even perhaps, the increased amount size of soft coal may produce huge waste gas and cause the degradation of air quality. Without ruling out these factors, the author cannot convince me that the increased factories have association with the air pollution levels.

Finally, in asserting that the lower air condition levels are due to the more factories permitted, the author cites the evidence that the patients with respiratory illness of the local hospital percentage are on the increase. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case. The author has no evidence to certain that all these patients who catch respiratory illness cause by the lower air pollution levels. It is possible that this increment is caused by the more people smoking in Clearview or the recurrence of the old illness. To that extent, the author's argument -"more factories-lower air condition levels-more patients with respiratory illnesses ",is unconvincing.

In conclusion, the argument suggests us to vote the AG is unreasonable. To convince me that the AG is a better choice that FB, the author should provide more information about the two candidates. Otherwise, to better evaluate the argument, I need more certain evidence about the causation between the factories and air pollution levels, the air pollution levels and the percentage of the patients with respiratory illnesses.

zj-129UID: 2179763

很巧，今天写了篇和你的一样的。个人感觉你写得比我好。我还未开始看相关资料，纯粹凭的是自己的瞎打瞎闹。看完你的，整体感觉比ISSUE 要好，要规范。但是一些具体的语法错误还是挺多的。逻辑论证强大多了。而且，因为逻辑顺畅，所以改动的地方少些。

Argument7 第四作业 by 6号
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."


The author recommends that people should vote for Ann Green(AG) for his identification as a member of Good Earth Coalition(GEC) rather than the Frank Braun(FB) that a member of Clearview town council(CTC) . To support his recommendation, he argues that the current CTC are not preventing environment, whereas FB is one of them. However, the argument relied on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

In the first place, although AG is a member of the GEC, it is not the extent that she (he，总觉得ANN是女孩名字) is an environmental professional protector, whereas FB is viewed as a destroyer of our environment just because (of) he is a member of CTC. It is entirely possible that FB have tried his best to suggest the recent council to protect environment, but without others assistances, his effort is unavailable at last. On the other hand, AG is a member of GEC, but he has little interest in protecting environment. Even if AG is an environmental protector, whether he has ability to make an all-round plan to solve the environmental problems is still unknown. Perhaps Without experience on this field, he hardly takes effective actions.

In the second place, to support his assumption that the recent council are not protecting our environment, the author cites a evidence that the factories in Clearview have two times than last year, while the air pollution levels have increased. However, it is unfairly assumes that last year's air pollution was due to the factories produced rather than other factors. Perhaps, as the car's market abound, the private cars had increased. Therefore, these cars will produce air-borne emission what may be the primary factors to increase the pollution levels. Even perhaps, the increased amount size of soft coal may produce huge waste gas and cause the degradation of air quality. Without ruling out these factors, the author cannot convince me that the increased factories have association with the air pollution levels.

Finally, in asserting that the lower air condition levels are due to the more factories permitted, the author cites the evidence that the patients with respiratory illness of the local hospital percentage are on the increase. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case. The author has no evidence to certain that all these patients who catch respiratory illness cause by the lower air pollution levels. It is possible that this increment is caused by the more people smoking in Clearview or the recurrence of the old illness. To that extent, the author's argument -"more factories-lower air condition levels-more patients with respiratory illnesses ",is unconvincing.

In conclusion, the argument suggests us to vote （the）
AG is unreasonable. To convince me that the AG is a better choice than (that) FB, the author should provide more information about the two candidates. Otherwise, to better evaluate (两个动词同时用？) the argument, I need more certain evidence about the causation between the factories and air pollution levels, the air pollution levels and the percentage of the patients with respiratory illnesses.