argument 7 请留链回拍哈~~谢谢啦

nieyongUID: 2742661

请大家给点意见哈，顺便问一下我这个字数是否够了？~~（留链回拍~~）

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: 482
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/3/5 10:14:41


In the argument, the author concludes that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun in the election of next mayoral and asserts that the environmental problems will surely be solved by Ann Green. To support his conclusion, by citing some facts about the deeds of town council that have polluted the environment, the author indicates that the current members of it, which Braun belongs to, are not protecting the environment. To be honest, the evidence provided seems to be logical enough at the first glance, however, careful examination of the argument reveals that they lend little credible support to the author's conclusion.


A threshold problem involves the correlation between of the increasing numbers of factories and the town council of Clearview. After close scrutiny of the argument, we find little evidences to support the correlation. It is highly possible that the factories were established long time ago or passed by the majorities of the public. If in this case, then the cause-and-effect relationship between them would lack any merits whatsoever.


Secondly, even assuming the correlation between the increasing numbers of factories and the town council do exist, the author's claim still based on the assumption that what the current members have done will absolutely be repeated in the future. However, may the town council notice the problem and spare no effort to improve the conditions in the near future, things will also be better. These scenarios, if true, would cast serious doubt upon the author's conclusion.


Furthermore, even if members of town council will repeat their pollution to the environment, the author also fails to give us details about Braun, such as his policies and prestige. Above all, we don't know whether Braun has taken the crucial position in the town council and whether the pollution affairs are mostly depend on his decision.
Because the author provides no evidences to substantiate this assumption, the conclusion drawn from it is insufficient.


Last but not the least, the author's recommendation was based on the assumption that no alternative candidates are in the election. However, it remains unknown according to what the author has cited. Even if Braun should not be voted for, Green may not be the only proper one to win the election as well because we don’t know what he will do once he win the election. It is also possible that other candidate can do much better.


On all accounts, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the author should cite more evidences to substantiate the causal relationship between the increasing factories and the town council of Clearview. To strengthen the logic of the argument, the author should provide more information of the position of Braun in the town council and the future policy of him. Finally, to better assess the argument, we would need more details about Green and other alternative candidates.

nieyongUID: 2742661

自己先顶一下~~

nieyongUID: 2742661

再顶~！！

algabraUID: 2748722

1# nieyong

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: 482
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/3/5 10:14:41


In the argument, the author concludes that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun in the election of next mayoral and asserts that the environmental problems will surely be solved by Ann Green. To support his conclusion, by citing some facts about the deeds of town council that have polluted the environment (这么说不准确，市政府没有直接参与污染环境，最多是没监管好）, the author indicates that the current members of it, which Braun belongs to, are not protecting the environment. To be honest, the evidence provided seems to be logical enough at the first glance, however, careful examination of the argument reveals that they lend little credible support to the author's conclusion.


A threshold problem involves the correlation between of the increasing numbers of factories and the town council of Clearview. After close scrutiny of the argument, we find little evidence （不可数名词） to support the correlation. （这句反驳有点问题，建厂都要批准的吧，怎么会完全没关系呢？）It is highly possible that the factories were established long time ago （题目里明确说了在过去一年中翻倍，说明不是很久前就建成的，不过可以说很久前开始建，去年刚完工）or passed by the majorities of the public（很好的理由）. If in this case, then the cause-and-effect relationship between them would lack any merits whatsoever.


Secondly, even assuming the correlation between the increasing numbers of factories and the town council do exist, the author's claim still based on the assumption that what the current members have done will absolutely be repeated in the future. However, may the town council notice the problem and spare no effort to improve the conditions in the near future, things will also be better. These scenarios, if true, would cast serious doubt upon the author's conclusion.（反驳不是很有力，选民凭什么要相信政府在未来会改正错误呢？而且政府就算改正了，说不定还是不如Anne，那还是选Anne好）


Furthermore, even if members of town council will repeat their pollution to the environment, the author also fails to give us details about Braun, such as his policies and prestige. Above all, we don't know whether Braun has taken the crucial position in the town council and whether the pollution affairs are mostly depend on his decision.（这里可以进一步展开分析，比如说如果决策不是他定的，那么可以期待他未来会注意到这个问题等等）Because the author provides no evidences to substantiate this assumption, the conclusion drawn from it is insufficient.


Last but not the least, the author's recommendation was based on the assumption that no alternative candidates are in the election. However, it remains unknown according to what the author has cited. Even if Braun should not be voted for, Green may not be the only proper one to win the election as well because we don’t know what he will do once he win the election. It is also possible that other candidate can do much better. （这个理由不是很有力，可以质疑一下Anne的能力，比如the good earth coalition是个怎样的团体？听起来是个环保组织，但这就可以保证Anne有能力解决实际问题吗？她的能力经验是否值得信任？等等）


On all accounts, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the author should cite more evidences to substantiate the causal relationship between the increasing factories and the town council of Clearview. To strengthen the logic of the argument, the author should provide more information of the position of Braun in the town council and the future policy of him. Finally, to better assess the argument, we would need more details about Green and other alternative candidates.


个人以为字数不是关键，把问题讲清楚就好~

algabraUID: 2748722

麻烦回拍哈~
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1068182-1-1.html