第二次ARG模考作文，恳请大家猛拍，多提建议

zhufengchUID: 2695107

个人改了一些错拼的单词

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: 365
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-3-12 10:14:05

The argument seems reasonable at first thought; however, a close scrutiny of it reveals several critical flaws. First, the arguer bases the conclusion on a series of invalid assumptions. Moreover, the argument fails to consider alternative explanations. Additionally, the argument also simply believes that some promise would be practiced. These problems will be elaborated respectively.

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that group to which one belongs would represent his or her opinion. However, no evidence is given to prove this point. It is possible that Ann Green (AG) is less likely to practice policies in favor of environment protection, compared with Frank Braun (FB), although AG comes from the so-called 'Good Earth Coalition'. Moreover, we are not informed what relation is between the information that current members are not protecting environment and the decision of this voting.

Furthermore, the author fails to prove that the current members do not emphasizing on environment protecting. On the one hand, the doubled number of factories in Clearview (C) is too weak to demonstrate the point. Perhaps these factories are environment-friendly ones. On the other hand, increased air pollution levels can find other explanations. For example, C has been influenced by neighboring city, where the environment is severely damaged.

In the end, the author unfairly views that the AG would make the promise come true. Even assuming that AG would make some positive policies, as the problem of environment is complex and intrinsic, will the result be satisfactory? Moreover, the increased number of patients with respiratory illnesses cannot simply be due to damaged environment. The author fails to rule out alternative explanations, such as the population of C has greatly expanded; or, the condition of hospital becomes better so that more patients would like to go to hospital for treatment.

In conclusion, the argument, seemingly well-supported on the surface, suffers a series of flaws as discussed above. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to find effective evidence that the current situation of environment should indeed be attributed to the government. Also, the argument could be further bolstered by making sure that AG would keep the promise and it would be effective to solve the problem of environment.