【Flyer杀G作文组】7.25-Argument112-By CC

师大菜菜UID: 2838404

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: 403          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010/7/24 15:45:20
In the argument, the speaker asserts that the plan that Franklin Airport (FA) announced should be adopted for the reason that it is necessary to reduce the flight delays and the environment will actually be helped rather than hurt. The argument may be reasonable at first glance. However, it has many logical fallacies which make it unpersuasive.

To begin with, the author fails to prove that filling in 900 acres of the bay will necessarily contribute to reduce the flight delays. There are many factors which can cause the flight delays such as the schedule of airport and the accidental rate of AP. It is possible that the accidental rate is very high in the AP due to the poor quality of captains of planes which actually cause the flight delays. In this case, building new runways can do nothing to reduce the flight delays. It is also entirely possible that the AP needs a more scientific arrangement of airlines, because the current arrangement brings about the flight delays. The author fails to take account of these possibilities, thus the conclusion is unpersuasive.

What's more, even if filling in 900 acres of the bay will necessarily contributes to reduce the flight delays, the author fails to take account of the feasibility of the restoration of the wetlands. Experience tells us that it is easy to destroy environment but hard to restore. The wetlands cannot be restored however much was spent on the restoration of wetlands .It is also possible that the wetlands can be restored but the restoration needs lots of money which isn't affordable for AP. In short, the argument is flawed unless the author convinces us that these possibilities unlikely.

Last but not least, even if the wetlands can be restored, it is not necessary that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt. The results of disrupting tidal patterns and harming wildlife is cannot be predicted accurately. It is possible that the 900acres of the bay plays a very important role in the bay's environment which cannot be replaced by restoration of wetlands. The author fails to take into account these possibilities, so his or her conclusion is unconvincing.

To sum up, the argument is unconvincing. In order to enforce it, the author should give evidence to support that the plan is necessary to reduce the flight delays and the environment actually be helped rather than hurt.