【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT7 Ambition组回收站

lvruochenUID: 2792806

开始改作文吧
snow注意跟上进度

xiaohaixxxUID: 2317561

7, 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."


   In this letter there are several illogical point and understatement that make the letter inconvincible, the reasons are as followed.
   First of all, the author illogically assumed that because Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition he will care about the environment, while Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearview town council, will not. However, just from the belonging of group cannot know the candidates' opinion. We cannot ignore the possibility that Frank Braun is also care about the environment, for, as we all know, there are many people who are not belong to any protecting environment coalition, but also care about the environment. While being a member of the Good Earth Coalition is also not equal to care about the environment.
Moreover, the author did not provide us any evidence that whether the candidates care about the environment is a crucial factor that can charge the result of the election. The residents of Clearview may care more about other things such the education, economy, jobs and so on but not environment protection. If so, the candidates who emphasize the improvement of education or improvement of economy may be admired by the residents of Clearview, however, the candidate who emphasizes the environment protections may fail the election.
What's more, in this letter, the author didn't consider the feasibility to improve environment, in other word, even Ann Green win the election, he may has not ability to improve the environment, For he may not have the experience about how to harmonize each interest groups, and how to protect the environment meanwhile keeping the economy rising. For example, in order to protect the environment, government will raise tax to get more money to pay environment protection project, so if the tax rises, many companies may move away from  Clearview, and the economy of Clearview will get worth.
Additionally, the rising of respiratory illnesses may not relate to the air pollution levels have increased. For the statistics may not take into account the increase of the residents of Clearview. For example, if the residents have increased 100 percent in past years, the raise of respiratory illnesses mentioned in the letter is naturally.
In conclusion, the author of the letter fail to provide us any evidence or illustration to make us convince that Ann Green is a good candidate for mayor, and if he win the game, the pollution will be improved.

xiaohaixxxUID: 2317561

7, 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."


   In this letter there are several illogical point and understatement that make the letter inconvincible, the reasons are as followed.
   First of all, the author illogically assumed that because Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition he will care about the environment, while Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearview town council, will not. However, just from the belonging of group cannot know the candidates' opinion. We cannot ignore the possibility that Frank Braun is also care about the environment, for, as we all know, there are many people who are not belong to any protecting environment coalition, but also care about the environment. While being a member of the Good Earth Coalition is also not equal to care about the environment.
Moreover, the author did not provide us any evidence that whether the candidates care about the environment is a crucial factor that can charge the result of the election. The residents of Clearview may care more about other things such the education, economy, jobs and so on but not environment protection. If so, the candidates who emphasize the improvement of education or improvement of economy may be admired by the residents of Clearview, however, the candidate who emphasizes the environment protections may fail the election.
What's more, in this letter, the author didn't consider the feasibility to improve environment, in other word, even Ann Green win the election, he may has not ability to improve the environment, For he may not have the experience about how to harmonize each interest groups, and how to protect the environment meanwhile keeping the economy rising. For example, in order to protect the environment, government will raise tax to get more money to pay environment protection project, so if the tax rises, many companies may move away from  Clearview, and the economy of Clearview will get worth.
Additionally, the rising of respiratory illnesses may not relate to the air pollution levels have increased. For the statistics may not take into account the increase of the residents of Clearview. For example, if the residents have increased 100 percent in past years, the raise of respiratory illnesses mentioned in the letter is naturally.
In conclusion, the author of the letter fail to provide us any evidence or illustration to make us convince that Ann Green is a good candidate for mayor, and if he win the game, the pollution will be improved.

whiteoutUID: 2699068

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: 377          TIME: 00:34:55          DATE: 2010/5/9 10:10:29

This editorial argues that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, instead of the Clearview town council member, Frank Braun. However, this argument suffers from a series of poor assumptions, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author provides no evidence that the doubled number of factories in Clearview resulted from the city council's policy. It is entirely possible that Clearview occupies a good location and rich resources which attracted more and more factories. If this is the case, the author cannot convince me that the current members are not protecting the environment.

Secondly, the argument unfairly assumes that the increased number of factories polluted the air in Clearview and led to a further result that patients with respiratory illnesses increased. There is not a direct correlation between the doubled number of factories and the increased level of the air pollution while the former does not necessarily cause the latter. Perhaps that the number of factories increased would not bring about such a bad effect as the air was polluted. Similarly, a correlation between the increase of both the number of factories and the level of air pollution does not infer a causal relationship. Thus, there is no doubt the argument provides an unreasonable explanation for these facts.

Finally, even assuming that these negative effects on environment were due to the Clearview town council and Braun was a factor in these facts, the author provides no stronger evidence that Ann Green would certainly solve these environmental problems in Clearview. The mere fact that Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition amounts to scant evidence at best that all the environmental problems would be solved if the residents elect Green. Whether Green would be a responsible leader solving these problems effectively is still hanging in the air. Thus, I cannot accept the author's sweeping generalization.

In sum, this is a weak argument. To strengthen it, the author must consider and eliminate all other possible explanations for the environmental problems. The author must also provide evidence that Braun was responsible for these problems. To better assess the argument, I would need more information about whether Ann Green would effectively solve the problems.

字数少了我认错……

whiteoutUID: 2699068

TO xiaohai

In this letter there are several illogical point(s) and understatement(s) that make the letter inconvincible, the reasons are as followed.
第一段是如此的简洁啊……
   First of all, the author illogically assumed that because Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition he(?) will care about the environment, while Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearview town council, will not. However, just from the belonging of group (缺少主语 we?) cannot know the candidates' opinion. We cannot ignore the possibility that Frank Braun is(却掉) also care(s) about the environment, for, as we all know, there are many people who are not belong to any protecting environment coalition, but also care about the environment. While being a member of the Good Earth Coalition is also not equal to care about the environment.
感觉这段很多句子很中式，攻击点只集中在两者所属组织不同，很多句子反复说的都是这一个问题
Moreover, the author did not provide us any evidence that whether the candidates care about the environment is a crucial factor that can charge the result of the election. The residents of Clearview may care more about other things such (as) the education, economy, jobs and so on but not environment protection. If so, the candidates who emphasize the improvement of education or improvement of economy may be admired by the residents of Clearview, however(while是不是更合适一些), the candidate who emphasizes the environment protections may fail the election.
这段观点很新颖啊~赞~
What's more, in this letter, the author didn't consider the feasibility to improve environment, in other word, even Ann Green win(s) the election, he may has not()not has the) ability to improve the environment, For he may not have the experience about how to harmonize each interest groups, and how to protect the environment meanwhile keeping the economy rising. For example, in order to protect the environment, government will raise tax to get more money to pay (for) environment protection project, so if the tax rises, many companies may move away from  Clearview, and the economy of Clearview will get worth(worse).
感觉这段和上个攻击点有交叉，后面举得一些税收增加的假想，觉得要说的更有力一些
Additionally, the rising of respiratory illnesses may not relate to the air pollution levels (which) have increased. For the statistics may not take into account the increase of the residents of Clearview. For example, if the residents have increased 100 percent in past years, the raise of respiratory illnesses mentioned in the letter is naturally.
例子举得不错~就是感觉这一点放在前面比较好
In conclusion, the author of the letter fail(s) to provide us any evidence or illustration to make us convince that Ann Green is a good candidate for mayor, and if he win the game, the pollution will be improved.

全文攻击了4个地方，内容上觉得有两个问题，一个是每个攻击点的顺序，感觉逻辑很乱，2、3放在3、4的位置上感觉更好；另一个是感觉不同点之间有个别地方有交叉，还有的单独成为一个攻击点过于薄弱。另外全文用了N多以For开头的引导原因的句子，不妨多试试其他句式，比如as、For the reason that、by reason of，或者放在句中的result from等等。

fufan6711UID: 2788330

The arguer concludes that residents of Clearview should vot for Ann ,who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition,instead of Frank Braun,a member of the Clearview town council,in the next mayoral election ,which will help to solve the environment problem.To substantiate the argument,the arguer points out that the current members are not protecting our environment.The argument seems reasonable at first glance, however, a more careful and thoroughly examination will reveal how groundless it is.

In the first place, the example presented here is unpursuasive for the following reasons. The number of factories in Clearview has doubled during the past year dose not have a direct relationship with the deteriorated environment, for the arguer have not provide any information about the newly increased factories. What if the factories are environmental friendly high-tech companies; what if those increased factories have taken effective measures before they pour out the waste; what if the factories are located in rural areas which is far away from the residents, which have little effect on the environment. Moreover, when it comes to air pollution level, we should consider it from a global perspective. It is possible that the polluted air is come from the adjacent cities via the wind circulation. We can not rule out the possibilities that the increased polluted air is emitted by the increasing cars and more frequent human activities. Meanwhile, the more respiratory illnesses patients does not mean the more aggravated environment. Maybe the respiratory illnesses is due to the increased old people or the newly born babies who has respiratory illnesses.

In the second place, even if we admit that the environment in Clearview is deteriorating, we can not assure that the problem will be solved merely by electing Ann Green, member of the Good Earth Coalition, to be our mayor. What we know from the argument is that Ann Green is a man who cares about the environment, but it dose not mean that he has the power to solve the environment problem. As we all know that environment problem involves many departments' cooperation, which demand the mayor have wide knowlege of the industrial production and the skill to intermediate different arms to work together. Is he qualified for the position is still open to doubt.

In the third place, it is not fair to the other mayor candidate .The government does not care about the environment dose not mean he neither. There is a possibility that he cares about environment very much, and has proposed many advices which has been ignored by the government.

From what have been discussed above, the conclusion that the arguer insist is unconvincing. The arguer should provide more detailed information about the connection between the environment and the increased factories ,air pollution level and particular introduction of the two mayor candidates in order to make a wise choice.

annkeUID: 2605122

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: 477             DATE: 2010-5-9 15:09:57
1 环境问题是不是council member 造成的
2 就算是，FB也可能不是破坏者之一。
3 就算FB是，AG也许也不一定适合当市长，她是碳组织的，不代表能解决所有问题。
Merely based on limited evidence and reasons, the arguer suggests residents of Clearview vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election, which is not only hasty and irresponsible but also unfair to Frank Braun, the another candidate. The reasons are as following.

First of all, it is unwarranted to regard Frank Braun is a person who care little about protecting our environment for the partial evidence provided by the arguer that he is a member of the Clearview town council. Because there is no valid evidence prove the entire Cleariew town council members are not protecting environment. More probably, there might be only a hand of members have unintentional behaviors of ignoring about environmental issue, which definitely cannot represent any members in council have neglected protecting environment. Thus, there is possiblity that Frank Braun belongs to another group who really engaged in environment protecting. Then he may do a very good job on solving the environmental problems in Clearview after elected as the next mayor. Without completely researching, the arguer unfairly judge Frank Braun unqualified to be the mayor.

Secondly, there are not valid evidence to verify that the environmental problems in Clearview were caused by current members in the Clearview town council. As everybody knows, global warming is a severe problem leading the air deteriorating in the planet, and it hardly can be solved simply depending on the members of councils. So even the air pollution did increase and more patients with respiratory illnesses did occur in Clearview town recently, it cannot blame to the current members in the Clearview town council. Maybe they cared so much about environment and had tried their best to improve the environment, but the results still turned out to be disappointment—all they had done is lowering the speed of environment deterioration. The argument did not contain other factors damaging the environment thus it is unconvincing.

Moreover, even as the arguer assumes, the current members of Clearview do not protect environment and Frank Braun is exact one among them,  the arguer cannot guarantee that voting for Ann Green definitely results in a promising future of Clearview. As mentioned above, the environment problem is a big challenge which cannot be easily solved. More importantly, all the evidence provided about Ann Green is she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. However, membership cannot totally verify her honesty on protecting environment, not mention she has the ability to solve the serious air pollution in Clearview. In a word, without further reasons given, if I was a resident of Clearview, I would not unadvisedly behave to vote for Ann Green as my next mayor.

In a word, this argument is not convincing for it lack sufficient evidence to prove the suggestion why residents in Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who may not  qualify to solve the environmental problems as the arguer indicate,  nor he/she logically reason why residents should not vote for the counterpart--Frank Braun.

annkeUID: 2605122

The arguer concludes that residents of Clearview should vot[vote] for Ann[叫得好亲切啊。。。] ,who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition,instead of Frank Braun,a member of the Clearview town council, in the next mayoral election ,which will help to solve the environment problem. To substantiate the argument,the arguer points out that the current members are not protecting our environment.The argument seems reasonable at first glance, however, a more careful and thorough[ly去掉] examination will reveal how groundless it is.[经典开头]
In the first place, the example presented here is unpursuasive[unpersuasive] for the following reasons. The number of factories in Clearview has doubled during the past year dose[does] not have a direct relationship with the deteriorated environment, for the arguer have not provide any information about the newly increased factories[我觉得不应该论证工厂，这属于事实吧。最后论证就算工厂增加、环境恶化也和council members 无关]. What if the factories are environmental friendly high-tech companies; what if those increased factories have taken effective measures before they pour out the waste; what if the factories are located in rural areas which is far away from the residents, which have little effect on the environment. [what if 好像是连词，那么只会应该还接一句吧。。eg. what if I had took GRE test tomorrow, I could not help but cry. ]Moreover, when it comes to air pollution level, we should consider it from [a global perspective全球的视角]. It is possible that the polluted air [is come双谓语] from [the] adjacent cities [via the wind circulation]. We can not rule out the possibilities that the increased polluted air is emitted by the increasing cars and more frequent human activities. Meanwhile, the more respiratory illnesses patients does not mean the more aggravated environment. Maybe the respiratory illnesses is due to the increased old people or the newly born babies who has respiratory illnesses.[我个人不太建议攻击事实。这里不涉及样本错误，最多就是他因错误，而这个错误的攻击要点在于指出arguer单单归结到members’ faults，而这一点作者显然疏忽了。]
In the second place, even if we admit that the environment in Clearview is deteriorating, we can not assure[adj, ensure] that the problem will be solved merely by electing Ann Green, [a] member of the Good Earth Coalition, to be our[?] mayor. What we[这里的指代不统一呢，第一句是读者we，现在变成市民we] know from the argument is that Ann Green is a man who cares about the environment, but it dose[does这居然成了个易错词了~] not mean that he[?/she] has the power[我们思路接近~都说他没能力ability] to solve the environment problem. As we all know that environment problem involves many departments' cooperation[你想说的是环境问题的解决需要多方努力], which demand the mayor have wide knowlege[knowledge] of the industrial production[?直接industry] and [the] skill to intermediate different arms[?] to work together. Is he qualified for the position is still open to doubt[Whether he is qualified,].
[让步攻击也是我很喜欢用的批判方法~~ O(∩_∩)O]
In the third place, it is not fair[good~] to the other mayor candidate[这句话说的无头无尾的。。] .The government does not care about the environment dose[does] not mean he neither[具体论证。。。please。。虽然我能理解]. There is a possibility that he cares about environment very much, and has proposed many advices[un.] which has been ignored by the government.[结构不平衡，三段太少了]
From what have been discussed above, the conclusion that the arguer insist is unconvincing. The arguer should provide more detailed information about the connection between the environment and the increased factories ,air pollution level and particular introduction of the two mayor candidates in order to make a wise choice.[最后的总结不完整，而且只点到了最不重要的逻辑错误（from my perspective）]
   [总的来看，文章思路清晰，层次分明，挨个批判，好！]

lvruochenUID: 2792806

60分钟，480字

The arguer made a commentary on the next mayoral election in Clearview. Emphasizing the deleterious environmental change took place during the past year, the arguer made the appeal to make choice after considering environmental background of each candidate. Thus, the choice is definite that residents should vote for Ann Green to improve the environmental conditions. Sound as it seems, flaws lie in that statement.

First of all, the investigation is not convincible. Without questioning the doubtful source of such statistics, the 3 perspectives mentioned can not tell definitely whether the environment is getting worse. First, although the number of factories is on a rise, we cannot judge the pollution is worse. Maybe the new factories are environmental friendly, or can use materials that used to be put away, and then do less harm to be environment. Secondly, the exact number of patients with respiratory illnesses remains unknown. What if the number is so little that the rise or decline in number should be ignored as something happening incidentally?
At last, as we all know, air pollution is a global problem that is not only caused by residents of Clearview, for the circulating of air is not just in Clearview. In conclusion, the investigation is groundless.

Even if the environment is getting worse, we cannot say which one can deal with the situation better. A member of the town council which ignores the environment is not always a person neglects the importance of environment. As the same case, a member of environmental organization can not always improve our environment. Whether or not they think much of environment can not be inferred for sure from the information mentioned.

Putting aside all flaws mentioned above, the most complicated election problem which involves a combination of all efforts is largely degraded as a matter whether the candidates emphasize protection of environment. When it comes to the choice of election, it is often the case that what we should do is weighing up comprehensively what the candidates can bring about. Even though environment is a significant factor worthy of thinking twice, it is irresponsible to determine the choice merely by measuring their environmental policy. Matters like financial policy, economic development and tax policy should not be out of thought. It is possible that Frank Braun, the one with less environmental but more governmental background, has much more capacity in dealing with a rage of matters that the government has to concern about. What is more, his experience in town council is really a treasury that has real effect on mayor's daily work which is just what his opponent, Ann Green, lacks.

All in all, the arguer presents the invalid investigate, judges subjectively that Ann Green can do better in environmental problems, and simplifies election, one of our most sophisticated problems, to a easy question of protection of environment. So, what the arguer stated should be acknowledged as an unpersuasive one.

lvruochenUID: 2792806

交完了。。。。。。。。。。。。
还好

snow注意赶上进度:)

fufan6711UID: 2788330

To Whiteout:
This editorial argues that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, instead of the Clearview town council member, Frank Braun. However, this argument suffers from a series of poor assumptions, which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author provides no evidence that the doubled number of factories in Clearview resulted from the city council's policy. It is entirely possible that Clearview occupies a good location and rich resources which attracted more and more factories. If this is the case, the author cannot convince me that the current members are not protecting the environment.

Secondly, the argument unfairly assumes that the increased number of factories polluted the air in Clearview and led to a further result that patients with respiratory illnesses increased. There is not a direct correlation between the doubled number of factories and the increased level of the air pollution while the former does not necessarily cause the latter. Perhaps that the number of factories increased would not bring about such a bad effect as the air was polluted. Similarly, a correlation between the increase of both the number of factories and the level of air pollution does not infer a causal relationship. Thus, there is no doubt the argument provides an unreasonable explanation for these facts.【感觉你给出的论据没有很好的支持你的观点（红色部分），论证不充分。可以给出工厂为环境友好型高科技公司，或者这些工厂有很好的处理pollution的措施等···】

Finally, even assuming that these negative effects on environment were due to the Clearview town council and Braun was a factor in these facts, the author provides no stronger evidence that Ann Green would certainly solve these environmental problems in Clearview. The mere fact that Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition amounts to scant evidence at best 【等下教下我这该怎么翻译】that all the environmental problems would be solved if the residents elect Green. Whether Green would be a responsible leader solving these problems effectively is still hanging in the air. Thus, I cannot accept the author's sweeping generalization.【这段也是，几句话说的都是差不多的意思，没有具体的例子来证明】

In sum, this is a weak argument. To strengthen it, the author must consider and eliminate all other possible explanations for the environmental problems. The author must also provide evidence that Braun was responsible for these problems. To better assess the argument, I would need more information about whether Ann Green would effectively solve the problems.


【总体来说，攻击的层次分明，语言简洁，基本没什么语法错误，但感觉在攻击flaw的时候没有举出强有力的证据】

xiaohaixxxUID: 2317561

2# soonyu In this letter, the author claims that residents of Clearview (should) vote for Ann Green instead of Frank Braun because Ann Green would bring us (them)a better environment. To support the conclusion(claim前面没说conclusion啊), the author cites a series of data about the environmental condition of Clearview when Frank Braun was a member of the town council（这个地方我觉得还是别加进去了，题目没有强调啊）. Though the assertion seems to be logical, however, it lacks of adequate evidence and relies on unconvincing data and unjustifiable assumption. Therefore, we cannot be persuaded by the author to vote for Ann Green instead of Frank Braun.（模板痕迹明显啊~~~）

Firstly, we cannot assume that the condition of environment in Clearview is declining. Albeit it is the（a） fact that the number of factories was doubled during the past year and the air pollution levels have increased, the phenomenon cannot represents the whole of environmental conditions. Perhaps there were too little factories in Clearview some years ago so that(too和so that不搭配) the number of factories easily becomes doubled but make few effects on environment（这个论点我觉得有点牵强，因为你前面已经承认pollution levels have increased是事实了， 为什么还要解释污染很轻微呢？ 不管污染的程度，污染了就是污染了，这是事实，environment in Clearview 就是declining了）. Because of lacking adequate convincing data, the increasing levels of air pollution and ratio of increasing number of patient in Clearview cannot indicate that the environmental condition is deep declining(这里比topic sentence 多了deep，论证就的侧重点就不一样了，有点混乱了).

Moreover, air pollution not equals to environmental pollution(额~~ 为啥呢?不合常理的论点尽量避免，因为有限的时间内事论证不清的). It is possible that in many aspects, the environmental level was increasing except for the decline in air quality. In conclusion, we cannot assert that the level of environment is declining.（这段论证对air pollution not equals to environmental pollution的论证很仓促，比较inconvincible ） Secondly, we could not assert that Frank Braun was careless（这个词不应该用在这吧） in protecting environment. Even if the environmental condition is declining in Clearview, nevertheless, there is no evidence to support (the concept) that Frank did not protect environment. Although Frank was a member of the town council, there is no obvious relevance between his job and the environment pollutions. Perhaps he has contributed to protecting environment but it does not very efficient because he has little authority. Thirdly, there is no evidence of (去掉of)that Green will do better than Frank in protecting environment. Maybe Frank did（改成may） be careless about environment, however, we do not know how does Green. We cannot assert that Green much cares about environment only because he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. It is doubt that whether this organization is designed to protect the environment(why?). Moreover(换成and好些), we are not sure about whether every member of the organization cares about protecting environment.

To sum up, we（residents of Clearview） cannot be persuaded to vote for Green instead of Frank only because of the author’s assertion. Without adequate evidence and data about Frank did not protect environment and Green will do better than Frank, we cannot accept the suggestion.

我也水平有限，兄弟批判的接受， 欢迎一起探讨~~~~~~~

lvruochenUID: 2792806

Merely based on limited evidence and reasons, the arguer suggests residents of Clearview vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election, which is not only hasty and irresponsible but also unfair不错
to Frank Braun, the another candidate. The reasons are as following.这句话好像不大好，MS充字数的
这个开头字数好少，学习了
First of all, it is unwarranted to regard Frank Braun is a person这里有问题了，is变成as，或者改成从句 who care 错little about protecting our environment for the partial evidence provided by the arguer that he is a member of the Clearview town council. Because there is no valid evidence prove the entire 这个词和member不大搭配Clearview town council members are not换成against protecting environment. More probably, there might be only a hand of members have unintentional behaviors of ignoring about 及物environmental issue可数吧, which definitely cannot represent any想说every？ members in council have neglected protecting environment.后半句有一点点重复，不过还是可以的 Thus, there is possibility that Frank Braun belongs to another group who（？） really engaged in 这个是过去式吗？如果是想写形容词就错了，过去时还可以environment protecting. Then he may do a very good job on solving the environmental problems in Clearview after elected as the next mayor. Without completely researching, the arguer unfairly judge Frank Braun unqualified to be the mayor.
不是议会每个人的错
Secondly, there is not valid evidence to verify that the environmental problems in Clearview were caused by current members in the Clearview town council. As everybody knows, global warming is a severe problem leading the air deteriorating in the planet我确实没看懂，好像这句话概念出现问题了，怎么是气候变暖？, and it hardly can be solved simply depending on the members of councils. So even the air pollution did increase and more patients with respiratory illnesses did occur in Clearview town recently, it cannot blame to the current members in the Clearview town council. 这个是个加字的好方法Maybe they cared so much about environment and had tried their best to improve the environment, but the results still turned out to be disappointment—all they had done is lowering不定式好一点 the speed of environment deterioration. The argument did not contain other factors damaging the environment 最后一句好像和这段不大相干thus it is unconvincing.
选择性忽视factory，说服力就小了，你可以试着说factory是产业链，空气全世界都变差，空气流通，不是一个人的事情
不过我觉得1.2段换一下顺序是不是更好
Moreover, even as the arguer assumes, the current members of Clearview do not protect environment and Frank Braun is exact one among them, the arguer cannot guarantee that voting for Ann Green definitely results in a promising future of Clearview. As 我怀疑这里有错，不确定mentioned above, the environment problem is a big challenge which cannot be easily solved不过换一个语序更好. More importantly, all the evidence provided about Ann Green is she（看来我想错了） is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. However, membership cannot totally verify her honesty on protecting environment, not mention错了吧
she has the ability to solve the serious air pollution in Clearview. In a word, without further reasons given, if I was虚拟语气貌似错了 a resident of Clearview, I would not unadvisedly behave to vote for Ann Green as my next mayor.不过据说不要加个人观点比较好，用自己举例子。。。。。。
这个和第一段似乎是一个意思，属于组织不等于喜欢做组织做的事情
In a word, this argument is not convincing for it lack sufficient evidence to prove the suggestion why residents in Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who may not qualify形容词性是好一点 to solve the environmental problems as the arguer indicate,  nor he/she可以这样？ logically reason why residents should not vote for the counterpart--Frank Braun.
好奇怪的结尾。。。。。。。。。。。。。。不过很简便

有几个拼写小错误：
Possibility, 那个地名
一定要告诉我是不是我有改错的地方。。。。。。。。。。。。。。