argument 7 菜鸟对前提攻击的疑惑

秋尽江南UID: 2636333

新手上路，初次发帖，写得有点罗嗦又有点混乱，希望大家见谅哈～



根据《argument应该这样写》的说法，最强攻击应该是原文因果之间的逻辑关系（如果我没有理解错的话…）然而北美范文对前提的攻击动辄一两段。



在写argument7的时候，作为菜鸟的我产生了以下两个问题：
1）以我目前的水平（不限时400出头，限时380左右）不可能花这么多时间和篇幅在攻击前提上，对于像argument7这样前提中包含两个推论的题目应该如何做到清楚地攻击其前提？还是干脆舍弃攻击前提？（被认为写得不清楚的段落在题目下方第一段，求鉴定～）
2）北美范文里经常出现关于统计数据（样本数量、代表性的问题）的攻击，个人觉得如果argument存在因果关系、类比错误等，那么统计数据是不是应该算弱攻击呢？在有其他强攻击存在的情况下，这点是不是可以不用？而且我觉得攻击这点很容易套用北美范文里的句子造成雷同……



argument全文见最后，已经经过了自己修改和互改（红字部分是同学的修改）还有一个问题在于开头，这样算不算模板化的开头呢？（我自认为没有restating原题…当然仅仅是自认为而已…）（方便不想看的板油直接无视之～当然更欢迎大家拍砖～）



题目：

Thefollowing appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper.
"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview shouldvote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather thanfor Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the currentmembers are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past yearthe number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels haveincreased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients withrespiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems inClearview will certainly be solved."

全文的思路：已有的现象（工厂增多，空气污染严重，呼吸疾病增加）不能反映Clearview的环境情况->Clearview的环境情况恶劣不一定是政府没保护环境->是政府成员的错也不一定是FrankBraun的错->即使Frank Braun不是合适的候选人，Ann的上台也不一定能解决Clearview的所有问题。


在第一段的攻击上和同学有一点分歧：
北美范文里，关于前提（工厂增多，空气污染严重，呼吸疾病增加）的攻击有两段（工厂和环境恶化不一定有关系，呼吸病和环境恶化也未必有关系，两个对推论的攻击），我觉得这篇文章主要的攻击点在于最后的结论：由Ann环保组织成员的身份不能得出她的上台能够解决所有环保问题的结论，所以决定减少对于前提的攻击，把两段缩成了一段。但同学认为我两段合二为一没有写清楚，而且攻击不够强。



希望大家能予以指点～


Firstly, the observed [url=]phenomena[/url]
of the doubled number of factories, increased air pollution levelsand the rise in respiratory illnesses, actually tellsus little about the environment condition in Clearview and they
do not suffice that theenvironment in Clearview is getting worse. Automobile exhaust[U1]
rather than the doubled number of factories,may result in air pollution. And there are other explanations for respiratoryillnesses such as viral transmission, an influx of people with pre-existing suchproblems and a growth in the number of smokers etc. Without ruling out otherpossibilities, the author cannot convince me that Clearview is undergoingenvironmental problems. (那个数量和比例的问题举出来会比较好吧，也就是增加25%的病患可能不具有统计数据上的意义)这个点有一点弱（有文章说一般来说把大的点放前面，这个并没有直接关系到假设和结果所以单独一段的话觉得有一点弱）



全文：

In this argument, the author advocates thatresidents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green in the coming mayoralelection. The recommendation may seem reasonable at first glance, however, itsuffers from some critical flaws. The author unfairly associates theenvironmental problems with town councils carelessness on that issue andhastily concludes that all those problems will be solved if Ann is elected.
[url=]The unwarranted recommendation may misleadClearview voters. [/url][U1]


Firstly, the observed [url=]phenomena[/url][U2]
of the doubled number of factories, increased air pollution levelsand the rise in respiratory illnesses, actually tellsus little about the environment condition in Clearview and they(指代phenomenon?) do not suffice that theenvironment in Clearview is getting worse. Automobile exhaust[U1]
rather than the doubled number of factories,may result in air pollution. And there are other explanations for respiratoryillnesses such as viral transmission, an influx of people with pre-existing suchproblems and a growth in the number of smokers etc. Without ruling out otherpossibilities, the author cannot convince me that Clearview is undergoingenvironmental problems. (那个数量和比例的问题举出来会比较好吧)这个点有一点弱（有文章说一般来说把大的点放前面，这个并没有直接关系到假设和结果所以单独一段的话觉得有一点弱）

Though the environment in Clearview is worsening,the author provides no justification that the town council members, especially FrankBraun, should be responsible for that problem. The council may have even passedlaws and regulations to protect the environment while the legislations are notcomplied, or it takes time for them to be effective.

[url=]Moreover, [/url][U3]
even accepting the assumption that the town council members are notprotecting the environment, the author cannot rule out the possibility thatFrank Braun is an exception. It is fairly possible that Mr. Braun is anenvironmentalist. [url=]Hemight fight against policies that did harm toenvironment when he worked [/url]as a council member andplans to carry out more environment-protectingpolicies if he is
elected as mayor. [U4]


Even if Frank Braun is not a propercandidate for Mayor, it is equally possible that AnnGreen is disqualified as well. The argument offers little informationabout Ann except that she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, yet theidentity itself is insufficient to indicate her willingness to solve theenvironmental problems in Clearview. Assuming she does have such will, she maybe incapable of accomplishing the goal. Common sense tells us that a mayor hasto deal with problems covering a wide range: economy, public welfares, urbanconstruction and so forth. To better support the author's recommendation, moreinformation about Ann's awareness on environment and ability to cope withproblems in all fields (including environment) is necessary.


In sum, the author's advocacy does notstand solid as it seems. A complete investigation into all candidates,including Ann Green and Frank Braun, is in need to help residents making wisedecisions.