【Flyer杀G作文组】07月24日Argument112-By 但我

但我UID: 2763822

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: 429
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/7/25 13:31:05

The argument asserts that the plan should be adopted, which means that the airport management should build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan assures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt. To support this conclusion the speaker says if it is permitted to build its new runways, the airport will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. The speaker's account of the proposal reveals several critical problems with it. Together, these problems serve to undermine the speaker's argument.
A threshold problem involves the premise of the argument. The speaker fails to prove that building new runways would reduce the flight delays effectively. There is no evidence that the cause of flight delays is the inadequate capacity. The condition of flight delays is relevant to other factors as well. Concerning that the airport is located in a harbour, it is more prone to be affected by severe weather than other airports. Moreover, whether the management of the airport is scientific could also have an effect on the condition of flight delays. In short, all these factors increase the uncertainty of the result of building new runways.
Yet another problem involves the fact that improvement of restoration of wetlands could offset the damage to wildlife caused by loss of habitats. This argument fails to compare the influence of the two measures, and we cannot judge simply by the figures --900 to 1000. But one point is certain, that building new runways would deprive us of more natural land, leave many wild animals homeless, so we are continuing our devastation. Although wetlands are of the same importance, whether restored wetlands can solve the problem of wildlife is still unknown. Besides, money can't solve the trouble of damaged wetlands, or perhaps the contemporary wetlands is beyond belp(help). We are aducated(educated) since we are children that the disturbance of eubiosis is hard to recover and takes countless years. Since we have learned many lessons, why do we go on to do harm to biosphere? And whether the disruption of tidal patterns will bring disastrous effects is still a question.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. The arguer did't(didn’t) prove that building new runways could alleviate flight delays, and could't(couldn’t) convince us of the benefits it may bring. Considering the serious results coming with the destruction of wetlands, it is unwise to continuing damaging the environment.