【Flyer杀G作文组】第十七次作业7月28日Argument112-By afufu1124

afufu1124UID: 2786856

TOPIC: ARGUMENT112 - The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the Franklin City Council.
"Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt."
WORDS: 320          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-7-25 11:07:56

Citing requirements from airport managment and certain evidence that proves the plan would do more help than harm to the environment of the wetlands, the speaker have concluded that this recommendation is appliable. Upon first impression, the claim seems quite compelling. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that the reasoning lends credible support to the recommendations.

To begin with, the argument assumes without justification that by building new runways to increase capacity, the airport would be able to afford the needs and reduce fligt delays. The argument fail to take other factors, such as bad weather, unscientific management that might contribute to the flight delays, into account. Few information about the weather condition around Franklin Airport has been offered. Chances are that  sitting on a bay, the Franklin Airport confronted with more wind even tornado that leads to flight delays. Therefore more runways to increase capacity is not the right solution. So is the case with unscientific management.

Another problem with the argument is that the reasoning fails to illustrate the relationship between fund and better protection towards the wetlands affected in the plan. The new runways will be constructed by filling in 900 acres of the bay, thus new damages towards the wetlands might occur. Before providing funding to take care of the 1000 acres of wetlands damaged by industrialization, the airport might need to recover the environment disrupted by the plan. There is little reasoning showing that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt.

All in all, the recommendation relies on doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument the author should demonstrate that the lack of runways is the most critical issue resulting in flight delays. To bolster the solution to protect the restoration, Franklin Airport should provide clear evidence that proves the fund would be helpful in protecting the damaged wetlands.