Definitely, a victory 小组第6次作业 argument By3号echo(huohuo0101)

huohuo0101UID: 2760840

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."

逻辑错误：
1现有证据无法有力证明，C的环境真的变差
2就算环境变差也不一定是council的错
3就算是council的错也不能假定FB与其他成员意见一致
4无证据证明AG就不会伤害环境
5选举市长时不单单考虑环境政策
The speaker appeals residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in mayoral election. Because her rival Frank Braun is a member of the current Clearview town council which is not protecting the environment in last year. the speaker made the conclusion by citing data on several aspects. The proposal is based on flawed assumptions thus make it unpersuasive as it stands.
To begin with, evidences cited by the speaker poorly supported the assumption that Clearview environment was damaged in last year. 25 percent incensement of patient with respiratory illnesses can be attributed to many causes such as plague or improvement of the hospital’s reputation. Without ruling out alternative causes, the speaker can not convince me that more people suffering from respiratory illnesses is due to air pollution. And also, number of factories in Clearview cannot be an indicator of environment pollution. Maybe newly built factories are environmentally friendly.
Even assuming that environment in Clearview has been damaged last year. There is no evidence indicating that the Clearview town council should be responsible for the damage. Government should always search balance between environment and economic interest. Perhaps the council has done a lot to reduce the environmental pollution to the least. Another mistake the speaker made in the argument is assuming the environment pollution process would not reverse. Maybe the current members of the council may be planning to take actions to prevent environmental pollution. If so, environmental condition in Clearview may be improved in the near future.
What’s more, the speaker falsely equals Frank Braun’s position with the council’s. even the town council made conservative policy towards environment protection but Frank B may be against the majority and is very a aggressive environmentalist.
In the final analysis, the speaker fail to provide any evidence proving Ann Green is trustable. Assuming Ann Green is selected to be the mayor, she will face the problem as the same as the council is with now. It’s very likely that she won’t do any better. And we should be circumspective about mayoral selection, environment policy is just one aspect to consider about candidates. What’s their health and education policy? Do they ever make any bad or good records?
To sum up, the proposal is based on several poorly supported assumption thus make it unpersuasive as it stands. To make people select Ann Green rather than Frank Braun, the speaker must substantiate that environmental condition in Clearview is and will be getting worse ,and find evidence showing the worse condition was resulted from the council’s decision and Frank Braun contributed a lot to the decision. What’s more, the speaker also need to provide more information about the two candidates concerning other aspects aside environmental policy, and to prove Ann Green is more trustable than Frank Braun in most aspects.