【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT7 F组回收站

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

* 5月9日，13点之前上交ARGUMENT7，作文直接跟帖，修改直接跟帖，不用另开新帖~
* 要求每篇argument附上逻辑链
* 欢迎在本贴内讨论+BS本期题目~

【Argument161情况汇报】（待补充）

总贴地址    F组素材积累库地址

7The 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."

附：
关于限时的一些思考 by银落
小麦可的分析——ETS AW intro的解读

lxin333UID: 2650844

1工厂增加和委员会不一定有关系
2呼吸病还可能是别的引起
3FB可能致力于解决 但是影响力不够
4Ann未必能解决


In this statement, the author recommends that Clearview residents vote to Ann Green to solve the environment problems in Clearview. To support this statement, the author cites a significant increase during the last year in the number of factories and thus in the number of the loclal hosiptal patients with respiratory illnesses. Grounding on this evidence, the author infers that the current council members are not protecting the environment and that electing Green will solve the environment problems. This argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

Firstly, the author unfairly assumes that the city council is responsible for the increase of factories in Clearview. It is entirely possible that many people build up factories which cause the environment pollution without the government’s approval. In addition, maybe the precedent town council didn't care much about the environment and thus result to the environment deterioration. Lacking strong evidence, the author's hasty conclusion is illogical.

Secondly, the author also assumes that the increase in number of respiratory illnesses is due to the environment pollution. It is entirely possible that the increase of respiratory illness is due to people's increasing awareness among Clearview citizens who have respiratory problems and other communicable diseases which have no relationship with the pollution. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author's conclusion that the environment pollution is responsible for the increase in number of respiratory illnesses remains untenable.

Thirdly, the author unfarily assume that Frank Braun was a significant factor in the town council's decisions. Maybe he is trying his best to take measures to protect the environment while a variety of problem is involved, budget, planning of project, for instance. The author provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the member of town council are opposed the environment pollution but they have no adequate authority to prevent it.

Finally, even assume Frank Braun was a factor in the town council's decision, and led to the worsening environment, the author falsely assumes that electing Ann Green would be able to reverse that trend, of course, whether Ann Green can solve the environment problem is open to doubt. The mere fact that Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition hardly suffice to prove her willingness and ability to undertake the tough task. It is possible that the electing of Ann Green will continue the worsening of environment because of her lacking of experience, ability or wrong method.

In conclusion, the author cannot justify his voting recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence about environment pollution and the town council. To bolster it, the author must provide evidence that the increasing of factories is due to town council's decision and the respiration illnesses is caused mostly by the air pollution. To better access the argument, I would need to know other alternative candidates besides Green and Braun. I would also need to know whether there is more ways to solve the problem besides electing Green.

makeithappenUID: 2585223

1. 那些环境问题也许是别的原因引起，因为没有证据表明那些环境问题就是工厂增加引起的）
2.  工厂增加也许是好事。（，town council已经尽力在做了。。）
3。town council也许已经做了很多工作了。。。Ann Green 不一定就合适

The argument above iswell-presented, but lacks logic. The author assume that Ann Green exceed Frankbraun when deal with the problem with environment. But the author only providesthe evidence about the severe environment situation of Clearview when FrankBraun in charge of Clearview, which could not illustrate that Ann Green wouldbe a optimal mayor.
Although the three situations: thenumber of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels haveincreased, and the local hospital has treated more patients with respiratoryillnesses, occur at the same time, they are not must be causality. There is anotherthing to cause the air pollution and respiratory illnesses, not the rocketingfactories number. For example, the terrible environment of near town would leadto the Clearview's increasing of air pollution and the number of respiratoryillnesses. And Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, has triedhis best to prevent the air pollution.
The argument is weaken by the factit does not take performances in other areas into account when compare thesetwo candidates. If Frank Braun is in charge of unemployment issue in Clearviewtown council and the unemployed rate greatly decline since the increasing ofnumber of factories in Clearview, then Frank Braun arrive his assignment perfectly.The issue of pollution obviously not Frank Braun's range governed. Thus a morecomplete investigation about both Frank Braun and Ann Green's work should bemade, before we can the conclusion that Ann Green is superior to Frank Braun.
Finally, although Ann Green mighthave more experience than Frank Braun in dealing the environmental issue,nothing guarantee that environmental problems in Clearview will certainly besolved since we lack the information about what really cause the environmentalproblems and how to solve them. If environmental problems lasting forlong-time, as we all known some methods for solving environmental problems suchas clarify the air should take a relatively long time, we could not expect onemayor solving it immediately. Also, the mayor have more responsibility indeveloping Economic and stabling the society, and sometimes the development ofEconomic and
stability will hurt environmentmore or less. So Ann Green would face impediment when solving the environmentalproblems, which would weaken her determination of solving environmentalproblems. And without looking more specific into both two people, we could notknow who can done a best job when being the mayor, since solving environmentalproblems is just one of mayor's assignment, not all.
The argument recommending Ann Green for the mayor based on Ann Green andFrank Braun's title and the severe environmental problems in Clearview townwarn the citizens of Clearview to pay attention to their the environmentalproblems. But before a conclusion about who is the optimal major, a morecomplete understanding of all the candidate's ability and character is needed.After all, a false major can destroy the whole town financially and psychologicallyin a short time.

悦微微志燮UID: 2759026

This recommendation that the Clearview needs a environment protecting mayoral appears to be sound and I can fully understand it. After all, this growing public concerned issue makes more and more people who care for their living condition and development of world's future, realize the enviroment pollution a urgent problem. Unfortunately, I am afraid this argument can hardly bear further consideration because of its insufficient evidence and heedless reasoning.

First, the arguer unfairly attributes all environment problem to the Clearview town council's  dereliction. Admittedly, the council has such responsibility to protect environment. However, in this argument I find no concrete evidence show that the council ignore the enviroment problem. The source of air pollution is not only the factories but also other ways, for example, the automobile pollution gas. Futhermore, the arguer does not tell me that the new factories are all harmful for the environment. If those factories could take an effective measure, it would not bring out any serious pollution problem.

Secondly, granted that the council ignored the environment problem, I still can not be convinced that Frank Braun is not qualified to be a mayoral. A competent mayoral should have leadership, perspicuous policy of ecnomic,civilization,education,etc, apart from the concious of environment protection. According to the arguer's presentation, Frank Braun as a member of the town council, who deals with the management of a town, has more experence than Ann Green, who is only a member of the Good Earth Coalition.

Lastly, the auger points that if the residents elect Ann Green, the environment problems in Clearview will be solved. However, this is merely a surmise without any concrete evidence. What Ann Green done to protect the environment? What about his pilicy of the protection? Dose these measures benefit the city's development? What is his or her advantage in the world? However the arguer ignores to tell me. If Ann Green is only good at the environment protecting, shall we risk to elect him?

In sum, the arguer unfairly makes such unwarrant conclusion that the residents should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun. After all, a false decision of voting mayoral is as dangerous as envieonment pollution. Hence, the arger should do more work to make a further and effective investigation to convince us.

xmaszztUID: 2796708

In this argument, the author suggests that residents of Clearvies should vote for Ann Green rather than for Frank Braun in the next mayoral election because Ann Green would solve the environmental problems in Clearview. It is some how reasonable at first glance but the author still fails to constructs his standpoint by willy-nilly evidence.

First, the example that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses can not illuminate the environmental problems. The author unfairly indicates a causal relation between the number of factories in Clearview has doubled past year and the increased respiratory illnesses, perhaps a epidemic diseases coursed this, and the isolated of data 25% can not explain any problems; perhaps the number of patients just increased from 4 to 5, this subtle difference can be difficult to account for the air pollution. So the author can not get conclusion by this erroneous evidence.

Second, the author assumes that Frank Braun represent the current members of Clearview, this is unreasonable. Perhaps Frank Braun is different from the other members of Clearview who would attaches great importance to environmental problems; he would reduce the number of factories, or control the pollution of factories. Without ruling out such possibilities, I can not accept the author’s suggestion.

Even assuming that Frank Braun would not protect out environment, we must consider other responsibilities for a mayor. A competent mayor should have leadership, perspicuous policy of economic, civilization, education, etc. Perhaps in these aspects, Ann Greenwould simply does not match
Frank Braun; perhaps
economy will decline, the quality of education will decline, and society will become unstable when Ann Green was mayor of the future. Without thinking about these alternatives, we can not support Ann Green to be the mayor.

Last but not the least, the author assert that the environment will be protected if we elect Ann Green, there is no evidence that Ann Green would do some measure to solve the environment problems, perhaps The number of factories will be more, and the air pollution will become more serious. For that matter, we can not elect Ann Green by author’s suggestion either.

To sum up, the author’s suggestion about we should elect Ann Green as our new mayor is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide more evidence such as some opinion poll or some performance statistics but not only the problem cause by environmental pollution.

makeithappenUID: 2585223

This recommendation that the Clearview needs a[an] environment protecting mayoral appears to be sound and I can fully understand it. [一般美国人比较正式的论文里很少用I，一般用we]After all, this growing public concerned issue makes more and more people who care for their living condition and development of world's future, realize the enviroment[environment] pollution a[an] urgent problem. Unfortunately, I am afraid this argument can hardly bear further consideration because of its insufficient evidence and heedless reasoning.
First, the arguer unfairly attributes all environment problem[problems] to the Clearview town council's  dereliction. Admittedly, the council has such responsibility to protect environment. However, in this argument I find no concrete evidence show that the council ignore the enviroment[environment] problem. The source of air pollution is not only the factories but also other ways, for example, the automobile pollution gas. Futhermore[Furthermore], the arguer does not tell me that the new factories are all harmful for the environment. If those factories could take an effective measure, it would not bring out any serious pollution problem.
Secondly, granted that the council ignored the environment problem, I still can not be convinced that Frank Braun is not qualified to be a mayoral[mayor]. A competent mayoral should have leadership, perspicuous policy of ecnomic[economic],civilization,education,etc, apart from the concious[consicous] of environment protection. According to the arguer's presentation, Frank Braun as a member of the town council, who deals with the management of a town, has more experence[experience] than Ann Green, who is only a member of the Good Earth Coalition.
Lastly, the auger points that if the residents elect Ann Green, the environment problems in Clearview will be solved. However, this is merely a surmise without any concrete evidence. What Ann Green done to protect the environment? What about his pilicy[policy] of the protection? Dose these measures benefit the city's development? What is his or her advantage in the world? However the arguer ignores to tell me. If Ann Green is only good at the environment protecting, shall we risk to elect him?
In sum, the arguer unfairly makes such unwarrant[unwarrented] conclusion that the residents should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun. After all, a false decision of voting mayoral is as dangerous as envieonment[environment] pollution. Hence, the arger[author] should do more work to make a further and effective investigation to convince us.

下次最好还是先贴到word里面然后自己改了再贴出来吧。。因为。这样子自己才能记得牢。。：）
还有论文里面最好不要有I， me 之类的
论文层次很清晰，赞，结尾也很不错。。。

lxin333UID: 2650844

3# makeithappen


The argument above is well-presented, but lacks logic. The author assume that Ann Green exceed Frank Braun when deal with the problem with environment. But the author only provides the evidence about the severe environment situation of Clearview when Frank Braun in charge of Clearview, which could not illustrate that Ann Green would be a optimal mayor.
Although the three situations: the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated more patients with respiratory illnesses, occur at the same time, they are not must be causality这样的概括好像不够argument~. There is another thing（后面说的不止一个吧） to cause the air pollution and respiratory illnesses, not the rocketing factories number（not only吧，不然你的话不也很不严谨）. For example, the terrible environment of near town would lead to the Clearview's increasing of air pollution and the number of respiratory illnesses. And Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, has tried his best to prevent the air pollution.这句话是用来说这些现象不该归咎于FB的吧，和你在这段攻击的因果关系没什么联系的
The argument is weaken by the fact it does not take performances in other areas into account when compare thesetwo candidates. If Frank Braun is in charge of unemployment issue in Clearviewtown council and the unemployed rate greatly decline since the increasing of number of factories in Clearview, then Frank Braun arrive his assignment perfectly. The issue of pollution obviously not Frank Braun's range governed病句？. Thus a more complete investigation about both Frank Braun and Ann Green's work should be made, before we can the conclusion that Ann Green is superior to Frank Braun.感觉偏了，我觉得应该是说Ann确实能解决污染问题才可以得出结论superior
Finally, although Ann Green might have more experience than Frank Braun in dealing the environmental issue, nothing guarantee that environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved since we lack the information about what really cause the environmental problems and how to solve them. If environmental problems lasting for long-time, as we all known some methods for solving environmental problems such as clarify the air should take a relatively long time, we could not expect one mayor solving it immediately.观点不错 Also, the mayor have more responsibility in developing Economic and stabling the society, and sometimes the development of Economic and stability will hurt？（do harm to） environment more or less. So Ann Green would face impediment when solving the environmental problems, which would weaken her determination of solving environmental problems. And without looking more specific into both two people, we could not know who can done a best job when being（elected？） the mayor, since solving environmental problems is just one of mayor's assignment, not all.
The argument recommending Ann Green for the mayor based on Ann Green and Frank Braun's title and the severe environmental problems in Clearview townwarn the citizens of Clearview to pay attention to their the environmental problems. But before a conclusion about who is the optimal major, a more complete understanding of all the candidate's ability and character is needed.After all, a false major can destroy the whole town financially and psychologically不懂
in a short time.

有些观点是不错的，但是用词，语言还要加强，可以从模仿范文之类的开始
还有，贴作文之前，先放到word把一些小错误都改了，谢谢！

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

例子(去年工厂数量翻倍-->空气污染升级 & local医院respiratory的人多了25%) -->环境污染-->town council 现任成员没有保护环境-->C人应该投票给AG(GEC成员),不要给FB(town council)-->环境问题会得到解决


The speaker suggests Clearview residents to vote to Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than to the town-council member Frank Braun, based on his assumption that the town council should be responsible for the environment pollution in Clearview for which she cites a significant increase in the number of Clearview factories and hospital patients treated for respiratory illnesses during the last year  as supporting statements. In the closing sentence, he guarantees that electing Green will absolutely solve the environmental problems in Clearview. However, this argument is logically flawed in several critical respects which require further observation.

The speaker claims that the current town council is responsible for several problems existing in the Clearview community and therefore Frank Braun should not be elected. Nevertheless, the problems he cites such as the increasing number of factories and the patients suffering respiratory disease are wrongly attributed to the local town council. Let’s divide these items and analyze to make a distinction between each. First, the speaker fails to give any information that the factories bring about the air pollution. Primarily, these new factories are probably not the polluting enterprises—for instance, petrochemical plants, gas-power plants or paper mills--but the green industries such as precision instrument factories or garment factories which may hardly pollute the air.  Moreover, even if the new factories maybe thought to somewhat cause air pollution, the managers probably have considered these problems and spared no effort to control it. Last, it is partial to merely ascribe the air pollution to the increase of the factories; for all we know，a great deal of pollution is also caused by cars. Second, the speaker errs in the nexus between the respiratory illnesses and air pollution; he does not give any clue to persuade the reader that it is the air pollution that causes the growing number of the patients suffering respiratory disease. The cause could be the seasonal allergies, the increasing number of people who begin to smoke, the various incubation periods for the patients and so forth. In short, the examples the speaker indicates to support his view could not actually be the cause of air pollution in Clearview. Thus, evidently, more information should be provided to help evaluate the performance of town council in dealing with environment pollution, rather than such unsound evidence.

Furthermore, no evidence reveals that Ann Green would become an effective leader in the future. The speaker merely mentions that she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition--which maybe qualified for the position—but not indicates her previous experience or working capabilities for the new job. It is certainly possible that she is a tyro or entirely unfamiliar with the local condition. It is also possible that her rival, Frank Braun, by contrast, may have more than 10 years of experience and be a well-known professional in this area. Therefore, it is hard for the residents to vote for Ann with a limited background introduction of the two candidates; and eventually, the claim of the author in closing that “if we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved” would be unsubstantiated as well.

To sum up, with the basis of the inadequate evidence provided in the editorial, the speaker fails to make a persuasive conclusion. To bolster his recommendation, he must provide better evidence to support that Clearview does has environmental problems and that Ann is more proper for the position than Frank.

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

2# lxin333

In this statement, the author recommends that Clearview residents vote to Ann Green to solve the environment problems in Clearview. To support this statement, the author cites a significant increase during the last year in the number of factories and thus in the number of the loclal hosiptal patients with respiratory illnesses. Grounding on this evidence, the author infers that the current council members are not protecting the environment and that electing Green will solve the environment problems. This argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

Firstly, the author unfairly assumes that the city council is responsible for the increase of factories in Clearview. It is entirely possible that many people build up factories which cause the environment pollution without the government’s approval. In addition, maybe the precedent town council didn't care much about the environment and thus result to（in） the environment deterioration（非常好的替换！学习）. Lacking strong evidence, the author's hasty conclusion is illogical.

Secondly, the author also assumes that the increase in number of respiratory illnesses is due to the environment pollution. It is entirely possible that the increase of respiratory illness is due to people's increasing awareness among Clearview citizens who have respiratory problems and other communicable diseases which have no relationship with the pollution. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author's conclusion that the environment pollution is responsible for the increase in number of respiratory illnesses remains untenable.

Thirdly, the author unfarily assume that Frank Braun was a significant factor in the town council's decisions. Maybe he is trying his best to take measures to protect the environment while a variety of problem is involved, budget, planning of project, for instance.（very Economist！） （but？linkword~）The author provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the member of town council are opposed （to）the environment pollution but they have no adequate authority to prevent it.

Finally, even assume Frank Braun was
a factor（这句主要是这里，感觉用 factor的话，前面Frank Braun应该换成动词短语什么的，用人作主语有点...  或者 可以把这个“be谓语句”换成“普通动词谓语句”，比如Frank Braun have made wrong dicision which led to the worsening environment） in the town council's decision, and led to the worsening environment, the author falsely assumes（重复了） that electing Ann Green would be able to reverse that trend,（这里是句号？） of course, whether Ann Green can solve the environment problem is open to doubt. The mere fact that Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition hardly suffice to prove her willingness and ability to undertake the tough task. It is possible that the electing of Ann Green will continue the worsening of environment because of her lacking of（删！） experience, ability or wrong method（鸡蛋挑骨头了：这里感觉可以换更准确更GRE的词~）.

In conclusion, the author cannot justify his voting recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence about environment pollution and the town council. To bolster it, the author must provide evidence that the increasing of factories is due to town council's decision and the respiration illnesses is caused mostly by the air pollution. To better access the argument, I would need to know（学习~比should好！） other alternative candidates besides Green and Braun. I would also need to know whether there is more ways to solve the problem besides electing Green.（好！可以背起来，给自己用~）

写的非常好了，抽丝剥茧的论述，感觉比以往更加细致了，想的更缜密了~~
换词也是不知不觉进行的，很variety~~
美中不足就是，我读的body部分前三段的论证的时候，感觉有些模式化了：就是主题句+可能性。其实还可以用用排比呀，对比句呀，反问句呀什么之类的~~ 就是怎么让文章觉得有趣：）
个人之见，仅供参考哈~~

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

5# xmaszzt

In this argument, the author suggests that residents of Clearvies should vote for Ann Green rather than for Frank Braun in the next mayoral election because Ann Green would solve the environmental problems in Clearview. It is some how（somewhat？） reasonable at first glance but the author still（删~） fails to constructs his standpoint by willy-nilly evidence.

First, the example that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses can not illuminate the environmental problems. The author unfairly indicates a causal relation between the number of factories in Clearview （which）has doubled past year and the increased（increasing） respiratory illnesses,（因果关系两个单句可以用semicolon，最好是前因后果，不过我觉得也可以把这个句子当做两个单句理解了，不必强求前因后果。----写这句话之前没有往后看，往后看之后，觉得这里要用破折号，将perhaps这句做插入语） perhaps a epidemic diseases coursed（caused） this, （---）and the isolated of data 25% can not explain any problems; perhaps the number of patients just increased from 4 to 5, this subtle difference can be difficult to account for the air pollution. So the author can not get conclusion by this erroneous evidence.

（下划线部分，我的改动是：The author unfairly indicates a causal relation between the number offactories in Clearview which has doubled past year and the increasing respiratoryillnesses--- perhaps it is caused by an epidemic diseases --- and, the isolated data 25% cannot be sufficient for drawing any conclusion： perhaps the number of patients just increased from 4 to 5 and such asubtle difference is difficult for the reader to judge his assertion.）

Second, the author assumes that Frank Braun represent the current members of Clearview（council）, this（which--从句，或者this前面加and） is unreasonable. Perhaps Frank Braun is different from the other members of Clearview who（人物指代不明，或者变成：Frank Braun would attaches great importance to environmental problems， which is different from the other members of Clearview） would attaches great importance to environmental problems; he would reduce the number of factories（嗯？unreasonable---why does he have such a power to reduce the number of factories？这个需要双方协调吧？觉得would换成could好一些，有能力去做~~）, or control the pollution of factories. Without ruling out such possibilities, I can not accept the author’s suggestion.

Even assuming that Frank Braun would not protect out（删~） environment, we must consider other responsibilities for a mayor（刚发现是mayoral election，赞仔细）. A competent mayor should have（the ability of） leadership, （and coordination to deal with）perspicuous policy of economic, civilization, education, etc. （but Ann probably doesnot have the ability.） Perhaps in these aspects, Ann Green would simply does not match（我觉得用compete with，match 有歧义）
Frank Braun
; perhaps economy will decline, the quality of education will decline, and society will become unstable when Ann Green was mayor of the future（或许可以写成if Ann Green becomes a mayor
in the future，the quality of local economy，education and even the whole society will decline and become more unstable ）. Without thinking about these alternatives, we can not support Ann Green to be the mayor.

Last but not the least, the author assert that the environment will be protected if we elect Ann Green, （ but--缺少连接词，或者用句号另起一段）there is no evidence that Ann Green would do some measure to solve the environment problems, （冒号或者破折号）perhaps The number of factories will be more, and the air pollution will become more serious. For that matter, we can not elect Ann Green by author’s suggestion either.

To sum up, the author’s suggestion about we should elect Ann Green as our new mayor is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide more evidence such as some opinion polls or some performance statistics but not only the problem cause by environmental pollution.


嗯~~ 好像有很多逗号和分号链接的长句子，我觉得以后写的时候应该注意下，这里面有的标点用的有些不适合，使得一些长句子没有了层次感，变得比较不容易理解。建议看一下我们群共享的《Ace the GRE Writing Assessment》或者草木斑竹的0910AW SPECTACULAR 之【SU &  SY SO】~ 个人意见，仅供参考哈

xmaszztUID: 2796708

改lin333...
In this statement, the author recommends that Clearview residents vote to Ann Green to solve the environment problems in Clearview. To support this statement, the author cites a significant increase during the last year in the number of factories and thus in the number of the local hosiptal patients with respiratory illnesses. Grounding on this evidence, the author infers that the current council members are not protecting the environment and that electing Green will solve the environment problems. This argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.
Firstly, the author unfairly assumes that the city council is responsible for the increase of factories in Clearview. It is entirely possible that many people build up factories which cause the environment pollution without the government’s approval. In addition, maybe the precedent town council didn't care much about the environment and thus result to the environment deterioration.（这个反例不是肯定了这个分论点原作者的假设了么？）
Lacking strong evidence, the author's hasty conclusion is illogical.
Secondly, the author also assumes that the increase in number of respiratory illnesses is due to the environment pollution. It is entirely possible that the increase of respiratory illness is due to people's increasing awareness among Clearview citizens who have respiratory problems and other communicable diseases which have no relationship with the pollution. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author's conclusion that the environment pollution is responsible for the increase in number of respiratory illnesses remains untenable.

Thirdly, the author unfairly assumes that Frank Braun was a significant factor in the town council's decisions. Maybe he is trying his best to take measures to protect the environment while a variety of problem is involved(涉及？哦。。), budget, planning of project, for instance. The author provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the member of town council are opposed the environment pollution but they have no adequate authority to prevent it.（这种“再踩一脚”的功能的句子每段都有。。占太多的篇幅读起来会感觉空洞吧=。=）

Finally, even assume Frank Braun was a factor in the town council's decision, and led to the worsening environment, the author falsely assumes that electing Ann Green would be able to reverse that trend, of course, whether Ann Green can solve the environment problem is open to doubt. The mere fact that Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition hardly suffice to prove her（GOOD。。。~） willingness and ability to undertake the tough task. It is possible that the electing of Ann Green will continue the worsening of environment because of her lacking of experience, ability or wrong method.

In conclusion, the author cannot justify his voting recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence about environment pollution and the town council. To bolster it, the author must provide evidence that the increasing of factories is due to town council's decision and the respiration illnesses is caused mostly by the air pollution. To better access the argument, I would need to know other alternative candidates besides Green and Braun.（这个提议好~） I would also need to know whether there is more ways to solve the problem besides electing Green.

写的很好。。很argu的一篇文章。。一眼看过去就知道要干什么。。。学习。。
我帮你列下提纲。。。~
1 工厂的数量增加和Clearview没有因果关系
2 呼吸疾病和环境污染没有因果关系（1,2都属于原文论据里的内部因果错误，先说论据问题很logical..恩恩）
3 就是这个第三段个人感觉有点问题：“he author unfairly assumes that Frank Braun was a significant factor in the town council's decisions。”这句话是想表达the current members 不能代表Frank Braun吧？这样就归集到以全概偏的错误里。然而之后的反例“Maybe he is trying his best to take measures to protect the environment while a variety of problem is involved, budget, planning of project, for instance. The author provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions.”为什么不直接只说也许Frank Braun和town council里的其他人不一样-他是保护环境的，就行了。不需要假设他其他方面的政绩吧，觉得列举这些例子对于反驳这段的错误（错误：原作者假设当前的环境问题是F这个人或者其团体所导致）没有直接贡献。如果要说，可以单另说选市长必须考虑其他方面不仅仅是环境，然后列举出这些F可能具有的其他方面的政绩，这样会比较好吧？（当然也许是我大半夜脑子不好理解你文章错误。。。完了讨论=。=）
4 就算选了AG这个人环境也不一定变好
恩恩错误基本都说到。。

xmaszztUID: 2796708

to 10# lynnuana
唔。。得好好改改了。。。

lxin333UID: 2650844

In this argument, the author suggests that residents of Clearvies should vote for Ann Green rather than for Frank Braun in the next mayoral election because Ann Green would solve the environmental problems in Clearview. It is some how(somehow? 还是都一样？) reasonable at first glance but the author still fails to constructs his standpoint by willy-nilly标志性用词了 evidence.

First, the example that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses can not illuminate the environmental problems. The author unfairly indicates a causal relation between the number of factories in Clearview has doubled past year and the increased respiratory illnesses, perhaps a（an） epidemic diseases coursed（caused？） this, and the isolated of data 25% can not explain any problems; perhaps the number of patients just increased from 4 to 5, this subtle difference can be difficult to account for the air pollution.这么搞笑的可能咋没想到。。。 So the author can not get conclusion by this erroneous evidence.

Second, the author assumes that Frank Braun represent the current members of Clearview, this is unreasonable.你这里是不是默认了市委都不采取措施保护环境？？？我觉得应该这么说：无从知道市委是否保护环境，也许。。。即使。。。FB可能和其他成员不同，这样就可以接下去了，而且还多出了例子呢。。。比如环境保护措施并不是立竿见影BLABLABLA~ Perhaps Frank Braun is different from the other members of Clearview who would attaches great importance to environmental problems; he would reduce the number of factories, or control the pollution of factories. Without ruling out such possibilities, I can not accept the author’s suggestion.

Even assuming that Frank Braun would not protect out environment, we must consider other responsibilities for a mayor.好观点A competent mayor should have leadership,
perspicuous policy of economic, civilization, education, etc. Perhaps in these aspects, Ann Greenwould simply does not match Frank Braun; perhaps economy will decline, the quality of education will decline, and society will become unstable when Ann Green was mayor of the future. Without thinking about these alternatives, we can not support Ann Green to be the mayor. 感觉少点什么，有点跑远了吧。。。可以加上即使环境得到该社，却换来社会动荡，得不偿失

Last but not the least, the author assert that the environment will be protected if we elect Ann Green, there is no evidence that Ann Green would do some measure to solve the environment problems, perhaps The number of factories will be more, and the air pollution will become more serious.和上面一段不是重复了么。。。 For that matter, we can not elect Ann Green by author’s suggestion either. 我觉得再最后一段可以说 更换市长是不是必须的渠道 作者是否忽略了其他可行办法

To sum up, the author’s suggestion about we should elect Ann Green as our new mayor is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide more evidence such as some opinion poll or some performance statistics but not only the problem cause by environmental pollution.

问题都写里面了=。= 觉得用语可以再阿狗点吧，不过觉得很顺畅，好理解~
发现我们在同一个问题上有争议了。。。再开个贴 我现在也乱了

lxin333UID: 2650844

Me
the author unfarily assume that Frank Braun was a significant factor in the town council's decisions. Maybe he is trying his best to take measures to protect the environment while a variety of problem is involved, budget, planning of project, for instance. The author provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the member of town council are opposed the environment pollution but they have no adequate authority to prevent it.

Gargoyle
the author assumes that Frank Braun represent the current members of Clearview, this is unreasonable. Perhaps Frank Braun is different from the other members of Clearview who would attaches great importance to environmental problems; he would reduce the number of factories, or control the pollution of factories. Without ruling out such possibilities, I can not accept the author’s suggestion.

=========================================================
Gargoyle
为什么不直接只说也许Frank Braun和town council里的其他人不一样-他是保护环境的，就行了。不需要假设他其他方面的政绩吧，觉得列举这些例子对于反驳这段的错误（错误：原作者假设当前的环境问题是F这个人或者其团体所导致）没有直接贡献。如果要说，可以单另说选市长必须考虑其他方面不仅仅是环境，然后列举出这些F可能具有的其他方面的政绩，这样会比较好吧

Me
你这里是不是默认了市委都不采取措施保护环境？？？我觉得应该这么说：无从知道市委是否保护环境，也许。。。即使。。。FB可能和其他成员不同，这样就可以接下去了，而且还多出了例子呢。。。比如环境保护措施并不是立竿见影BLABLABLA~

==========================================================

在下一次市长选举中，Clearview的市应投Good Earth Coalition成员Ann Green的票，而不是Clearview市委成员Frank Braun，因为当前的市委成员没有保护我们的环境。

首先呢，作者认为市委没保护环境，必然不对嘛。。。证据？
在你的说法里面就确实同意了作者的观点 然后才为FB辩护

再说我这个：为啥要换AG？因为作者认为FB这小子不够格啊~没保护环境~不过我应该在前面加一句，作者提议换ag是建立于FB是factor的假设上。。。然后再按你的说法。。。即使要换也要考虑到市长职责并不仅仅局限于保护环境。。。 恩恩 赞

===========================================================

Firstly, the author unfairly assumes that the city council is responsible for the increase of factories in Clearview. It is entirely possible that many people build up factories which cause the environment pollution without the government’s approval. In addition, maybe the precedent town council didn't care much about the environment and thus result to the environment deterioration.（这个反例不是肯定了这个分论点原作者的假设了么？）
我说的是precedent council。。。不是现在的 就算说现在的 也只是我猜测的可能，没肯定嘛
================================================
还有踩一脚的问题。。。我只是习惯
而且我觉得阿狗里面态度就要强硬吧，毕竟要你指出错误 就要犀利~不要含蓄委婉啥的~观点不片面不犯错误应该不要紧吧？ 我只是在例子里提出相反的可能性。。。算不算考虑周全？=。=
至于空洞的问题。。。在字数不够时候加上好了

lxin333UID: 2650844

8# lynnuana
不慌不慌 有点脑残了