第一篇argument 强烈要求猛拍 非常感谢！

zpeng1024UID: 2640077

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 editorial claims that residents of Clearview should vote for the member of Good Earth Coalition- Ann Green, to replace city council member Frank Brawn. To bolster his conclusion, the arguer cites that a notable increase of the number of factories and patients with respiration illness in local hospital. On basics of these evidence the aruguer concludes that electing Green will solve the environmental problems. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, however, revels that it lends little credible support to the claim .

Fist of all, the auguer unfairly assumes that the city concile should be responsible for the increase of the factories. It is possible that the council actually opposed the increase but have no adequate authority to prevent it. Even assumeing the increase is the responsibility of the city council, the argument provides no clear evidence that the new factories would certainly polluted the environment. Perhaps the factories do not in fact harm clearview's environment. Without eliminating all other possible explanation, the arguer can not convince me that the factories will harm the environment.



Secondly, the increase of the number of patients reporting respiratory problems is little indication that the worsening environmental problems. Perhaps residents only become aware of their physical problems, specially the respiratory one, this provides no evidence to show the actual increase of patients with such problems. Even assuming the incidence of respiratory problems is really increasing, it is possible that one severe flu epidemic sweeped Clearview last year, or perhaps people do not attend regular exercise, or the extending of the cigarette market. Without ruling out these possible explanations for the increase, the arguer can not justify  the environment is gradually polluting.




Thirdly,even if the two cited increase do indicate a worsening of environment due to the council's decision, the auguer relies on further assumption that Braun was responsible for this. Since the arguer porvides no credible evidence to substantiate the assumption it is entirely possible that Brawn were actually against the decisions which may pollute the enviroment. Without better evidence that Brawn made the decisions adversely effecting the environment , the arguer can not justify the claim.





Finally, even the auguer can substantiate the forgoing assumptions, the arguer provides no firm evidence that Green would be effective in solving the pollution. The mere fact that Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition lend little support to show she has enough power and ability, which make she deal with the problem skillful. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible the pollution problem would become more serious.




In sum, the argument relies on several suspicious assumptions that make it unconvincing as it stands.  To bolster the recommendation the arguer must provide clearer evidence :the environment is worsening; Brawn is responsible for the polluting;and Green could be more effecitve in solving those problems than any other candidate.



提纲：1 委员会不一定对工厂增多要负责
2 呼吸病人增多并不能说明什么
3  即使委员会要负责，也不定轮到Braun
4Green 不一定有能力治理