A 7 原45

huashiyiqikeUID: 2674177

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."

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。举例来说，去年Clearview的工厂数量翻了一番，空气污染水平增加了，而且当地医院因呼吸道疾病就诊的数量增加了25％。如果我们选举Ann Green，Clearview的环境问题肯定将被解决。

verydarkUID: 2765585

以前写的，直接复制粘贴了，写的一般，大家将就看看。。

The letter's author recommends that the residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun, for the reason of Ann Green's identity of Good Earth Coalition. To support his argument, the editor cites that the number of factories of Clearview has doubled, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. This argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

To begin with, the argument unfairly assumes that Frank Braun is not protecting environment. Even though the current members are not protecting the environment is true, the author cannot asserts that Frank Braun is negative in protecting environment. Perhaps Frank Braun is entirely interested in protecting environment, despite the major of the town council are opposite. The editor provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Lacking such evidence it quite possible that Frank Braun, the candidate of Clearview town council, is eager in improving environment. Similarly, the author also wrongly asserts Ann Green a protector of environment because he is a member of Good Earth Coalition. Maybe the creed of this coalition is preventing pollution; the author gives no evidences show that Ann Green will do something to improve the environment of Clearview.

The argument also assumes unfairly that the doubled factories and 25 percents more patients with respiratory illnesses treated in local hospitals in Clearview is attributed to the Clearview town council, even Frank Braun. It is entirely possible that the increasing number of factories is resulted in the fast development of this area, and the development benefits all the residents in Clearview. It is also possible that these factories are eco-friendly, making little pollution but great benefit. The editor fails to prove the relation between the increasing number of factories and respiratory patients and the Clearview town council, and what harm have the new factories done to their purlieu.

Moreover, the author fails to provide any strongly evidence that the increasing patients with respiratory illnesses are suffered from the polluted environment. It’s strongly possible that the increment of patients is causal in time, having nothing related to the pollution. Perhaps their illness is caused by natural reasons, maybe by some climate changes. Having pondered these possibilities, if the editor cannot substantiate the relationship between the increment of patients with respiratory illnesses and the pollution indulged by the Clearview’s town council, this argument is still unable to convince me.

To sum up, the editor’s recommendation is not persuasive. To bolster it he must provide clear evidence that Ann Green is more eager to protect the environment than Frank Braun. He still needs to give evidence that the increment of factories have led to worse environment of Clearview, and the increasing patients with respiratory illnesses are actually suffered from the pollution. What is more, he should provide clear truth that all the pollution is related to the town council, including Frank Braun, one of the candidates.

tianze0716UID: 2770455

1、当地猎手的数据未必准确
    1.1 猎手凭感觉，而非数字
    1.2 猎手活动范围有限，鹿可能迁移了
2、即使下降为真，下降和融化同时发生不一定有有因果关系，不能从变暖得出他的conclusion
           2.1 相关性到因果性需要检验
       2.2 可能有其他更重要的因素

抱歉，我也是新手，第一次回帖，不足之处请见谅。

huashiyiqikeUID: 2674177

修改： https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=1124407&page=1&extra=#pid1774174611
待改：写加修改花了三小时啊，多谢大家指教
the advice
that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann rather than Frank for the consideration of environment at first glance seems logical, but an overall thinking reveals that this advise not only is based on some false assumptions but also suffers tremendous logical problems.
the advocator highlights the fact that Ann is from the Good Earth Coalition, which insufficiently suggests that Ann can protect the environment more than Frank does. on the one hand, we have no idea whether the Good Earth Coalition is national, international or just a village group, or what role Ann plays in the coalition, nor do we know his performance in the realm of environment. maybe he is just a follower without any importance. on the other hand,
Frank is only one member of the Clearview town council, we cannot assume that it is he who actually plays a negative role in the protection of environment. it is possible that Frank is the only man in the council who opposes proposals that go against the environment every time but always failed. merely based on the writer's statement we cannot draw the conclusion that Clearview's problems can be solved by merely
a shift of mayoral.


in addition, to vote for a
best candidate, we should not focus on just one point.
Ann could be more qualified than Frank in the realm of environment, but to elect the best mayoral, we should make a general consideration: is the candidate trustworthy? can he deal with financial problems? what about his politics?...it is a complex issue and we have to think twice.
The writer simply overlooks the overall qualification which leaves his advice to doubt.

to sum up, to firmly convince the voters that Ann should get more support to be elected, the writer has to exemplify his better general ability in politics, and to give more details of
Ann’s
excellence in environmental issues rather than a vague title.

verydarkUID: 2765585

3# tianze0716

你貌似弄错了。你的提纲对的不是这篇。

tianze0716UID: 2770455

5# verydark

刚发现，晕死~~多谢！！

huashiyiqikeUID: 2674177

啊啊

verydarkUID: 2765585

4# huashiyiqike

The advice that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann rather than Frank for the consideration of environment at first glance seems logical, but an overall thinking reveals that this advice not only is(is not only) based on some false assumptions but also suffers (from) tremendous logical problems.(你的这篇A只有300多字，字数上有些少了，我建议开头可以模仿北美范文再充实一下)

The advocator highlights the fact that Ann is from the Good Earth Coalition, which （这是个语法错误，which这里代指的应该是Good Earth Coalition）insufficiently suggests that Ann can protect the environment more than Frank does. (The mere fact that Ann is from the Good Earth Coalition cannot sufficiently suggest that…) On the one hand, we have no idea that(whether用法有误，改成that) the Good Earth Coalition is national, international or just a village group, and（并列关系，or应该改为and） what role Ann plays in the coalition, nor do we know his performance in the realm of environment. Maybe he is just a follower without any importance to the organization. On the other hand, Frank is just(only不当) one member of the Clearview town council; We cannot assume that it is he who actually plays a negative role in the protection of environment. it is possible that Frank is the only man in the council who opposes proposals that go against the environment every time but always failed.（太极端化了，建议你把这些可能性说得委婉一点，这样更有说服力） Merely based on the writer's statement we cannot draw the conclusion that Clearview's problems can be solved by merely a shift（shift我不知对不对，有点奇怪，用change即可） of mayor.

In addition, to vote for a best candidate, we should not focus on just one point. Ann could be more qualified than Frank in the realm of environment, but to elect the best mayoral, we should make a general consideration: is the candidate trustworthy? Can he deal with financial problems? What about his politics? It is a complex issue and we have to think twice. The writer simply overlooks the overall qualification which leaves his advice to doubt. （这段的让步递进关系太不明显，建议用 Even if作为首句让步：Even if Ann could be more qualified than Frank in…, the conclusion that we should elect Ann Green is still drawn to hastily. To vote..）

To sum up, to firmly convince the voters that Ann should get more support to be elected, the writer has to exemplify his better general ability in politics, and to give more details of Ann’s excellence in environmental issues rather than a vague title.

整篇文章的字数还显不够，攻击的点太少，对于各种可能性可以多描述一些，但要注意不要极端化，这样会让人觉得你的攻击不可信。具体到这篇A，你还应该攻击factories, air pollution levels, more patients和Frank Braun的关系，以及选Ann的话C市的环境问题就能得到解决的不确定性，或者还可以考虑一下其他的竞选者。建议你在写之前先把要攻击的点及攻击的顺序列成提纲，再根据提纲写成全文。