argument7 【ForOneReason小组4】7.20 dycccc

dyccccUID: 2804635

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."

    Merely based on some suspicious evidence and dubious sumption, the arguer draws a conclusion that the residents in Clearview should vote for Ann Green, instead of Frank Braun
in the next mayoral election. To prove the conclusion, the arguer point out that the air pollution levels increases during these years.Well, Ann Green, who is in the Good Earth Coalition, should be a better candidate for the mayor than Frank Braun, a member from town council. However, in my opinion,this argument didn’t testify his conclusion.
    At first, the fact that more patients suffers from illness related to respiration lend no strong support to that air pollution levels have increased. There are many other explanations for that the number of people who get respiratory illness increases. Perhaps there is a serious epidemic illness in Clearview. Without ruling out all these possibilities, it’s unfair to say that environmental problem worsened in Clearview.
    Secondly, even if air pollution level did increase during these years, the arguer fails to prove that Frank Braun should be responsible for this problem. It’s entirely possible that Frank Braun worked in the department of public health and he do care public health and related pollution issue. Therefore, the arguer’s concern is unfounded.
    Last but not the least, the environmental policy may not be the key factor that determines voters’ choice. People may pay more attention on jobs, education, traffics and some other matters. Even if Frank Braun did not care much about the environments, and give promise to more jobs, better elementary school and new efficient government, people would still support him. On the contrary, If Ann Green overemphasize on environments and didn’t show a ideal governance program, nobody would choose her as the next mayor.
    To sum up, the arguer fails to lend s strong credence over his conclusion. To be more convincing,
on the one hand, the arguer should provide more direct evidence on that air pollution got serious in these years and that Frank Braun was responsible for it. On the other hand, a survey on whether people in Clearview pay much attention on the environment should be conducted. With the given factors discussed above, the argument would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

流氓高手UID: 2686529

Merely based on some suspicious evidences and dubious assumptions, the arguer draws a conclusion that the residents in Clearview should vote for Ann Green, instead of Frank Braun in the next mayoral election. To prove the conclusion, the arguer points out that the air pollution levels increases during these years.Well, Ann Green, who is in the Good Earth Coalition, should be a better candidate for the mayor than Frank Braun, a member from town council. However, in my opinion,this argument didn’t testify his conclusion.
    At first, the fact that more patients suffers from illness related to respiration lend no strong support to the fact that air pollution levels have increased. There are many other explanations for that the number of people who get respiratory illness increases. Perhaps there is a serious epidemic illness in Clearview. Without ruling out all these possibilities, it’s unfair to say that environmental problem worsened in Clearview.(个人感觉可以的话还是多想几个例子，如生病也可能是饮食问题，抽烟，不然argu就只剩下模板了)
    Secondly, even if air pollution level did increase during these years, the arguer fails to prove that Frank Braun should be responsible for this problem. It’s entirely possible that Frank Braun worked in the department of public health and he do care much about public health and related pollution issue. Therefore, the arguer’s concern is unfounded. Last but not the least, the environmental policy may not be the key factor that determines voters’ choice. People may pay more attention on jobs, education, traffics and some other matters. Even if Frank Braun did not care much about the environments, (and give) he could put his election emphasis on giving
promise to more jobs, better elementary school and new efficient government,
and people would still support him. On the contrary, If Ann Green overemphasize on environments and didn’t show a ideal governance program, nobody would choose her as the next mayor.
    To sum up, the arguer fails to lend s strong credence over his conclusion. To be more convincing,（on the one hand, 去掉）the arguer should provide more direct evidence on that air pollution got serious in these years and that Frank Braun was responsible for it. （On the other hand,）To better evaluate the argument，a survey on whether people in Clearview should pay much attention on the environment should be conducted. With the given factors discussed above, the argument would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

(模板在可以再精炼以下，最好试着多用点长句。在思路上，文章中工厂数翻倍是第一个论据，我觉得你应该写点，不能之子不提，大不了在得病的那段提一提，其次我觉得文章很重要的一个假设是ANN能解决环境问题，而又没有什么证据，这点我觉得也是攻击的要点，总之我觉得证明要挑重要的问题来说。说的不对和不好的地方请包含)

无声的热情UID: 2744946

开头有些罗嗦，模板比较严重，重要的地方没能够展开，细读官方范文你会发现argument的内容才是最终要的，模板不过是提供一个流程。里面的各个细节需要展开，坛子里面有这方面的资料。