argu 7

may0234UID: 2850480

头次尝试脱离模板写。本篇是在没有时间限制的情况下写的，请各位猛猛猛猛拍！
本人在离考试还有13天的时候才发现以前写的模板argu是行不通的，杯具啊！所以希望各位能多多帮我找缺点，使我尽快把argu搞定。
感激涕零！有拍必回拍！
TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - 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."
WORDS: 579
The argument is questionable in some respects. First, whether the environment is getting worse is dubious only based on the three examples given. Second, it is untenable to decide who is more competent to the next mayor on the basis of their status. Third, it is unreasonable to focus on the two candidates while ignoring other choices.

To begin with, the three evidences in themselves are insufficient to illustrate that environment in Clearview is becoming worse. First, the more factories do not necessarily suggest they would pollute the environment since they are likely to have made grade efforts to reduce the pollution they produce so the factories are actually environmentally friendly. Second, the growing air pollution levels may not be the result of local factors rather than of influenced by other areas near Clearview because the air can flow everywhere. Thirdly, the increased respiratory patients also accomplish little to indicate the worsening environment since it is just as likely that there have been more people who use cigarettes in the past year or perhaps there was an epidemic last year. In short, the three examples are less strong to illustrate that the environment in Clearview is getting worse.

In addition, even if Clearview is indeed suffering from serious environmental problems, and as a member of the town council, FB must take partial responsibility for that, the arguer cannot deny FB completely before considering his future strategies for Clearview. Perhaps he has been aware of the severity of environmental condition in Clearview and decides to try his best to solve the problem if he were reelected. However, there is nothing about FB’s policies and proposals concerning the town provided in this argument. Therefore, the arguer’s judgment about FB is to some extent is uneven without examining FB’s proposals.

What’s more, it is also unfair to claim that AG will surely help solve the environmental problems based on the mere fact that she is a member of GEC. Although common sense may indicate that GEC is an association involving in environmental protection, this does not necessarily imply that AG would place emphasis on solving environmental problems if she were elected as the next mayor. Maybe in order to present her effective leadership as soon as possible, she gives priority to the local economic growth which has a quicker response to relevant measures than environmental problems. Thus, what people are expecting might be much worse environment. In a nutshell, the key to which one should be elected is not their status but their specific measures for Clearviews’s future.

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of "either-or" in assuming that if FB is not competent for the position, AG is the only choice. However, common sense tells us there are always many other better candidates we can elect. The arguer should better take account of those alternatives and compare them with FB and AG before draw the conclusion that we should elect AG as the next mayor.

All in all, the conclusion arrived at in this argument is unpersuasive before more strong evidences can be provided and more rigorous reasoning can be exercised. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer should first conduct some investigations about the environment to ensure that the condition in Clearview does be getting worse. And instead of comparing the status of FB and AG, the arguer should pay more attention to their attitudes to environmental protection. In addition, other candidates should also become optional to the residents of Clearview.

may0234UID: 2850480

字太小了，再发一遍
TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - 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."
WORDS: 579
The argument is questionable in some respects. First, whether the environment is getting worse is dubious only based on the three examples given. Second, it is untenable to decide who is more competent to the next mayor on the basis of their status. Third, it is unreasonable to focus on the two candidates while ignoring other choices.

To begin with, the three evidences in themselves are insufficient to illustrate that environment in Clearview is becoming worse. First, the more factories do not necessarily suggest they would pollute the environment since they are likely to have made grade efforts to reduce the pollution they produce so the factories are actually environmentally friendly. Second, the growing air pollution levels may not be the result of local factors rather than of influenced by other areas near Clearview because the air can flow everywhere. Thirdly, the increased respiratory patients also accomplish little to indicate the worsening environment since it is just as likely that there have been more people who use cigarettes in the past year or perhaps there was an epidemic last year. In short, the three examples are less strong to illustrate that the environment in Clearview is getting worse.

In addition, even if Clearview is indeed suffering from serious environmental problems, and as a member of the town council, FB must take partial responsibility for that, the arguer cannot deny FB completely before considering his future strategies for Clearview. Perhaps he has been aware of the severity of environmental condition in Clearview and decides to try his best to solve the problem if he were reelected. However, there is nothing about FB’s policies and proposals concerning the town provided in this argument. Therefore, the arguer’s judgment about FB is to some extent is uneven without examining FB’s proposals.

What’s more, it is also unfair to claim that AG will surely help solve the environmental problems based on the mere fact that she is a member of GEC. Although common sense may indicate that GEC is an association involving in environmental protection, this does not necessarily imply that AG would place emphasis on solving environmental problems if she were elected as the next mayor. Maybe in order to present her effective leadership as soon as possible, she gives priority to the local economic growth which has a quicker response to relevant measures than environmental problems. Thus, what people are expecting might be much worse environment. In a nutshell, the key to which one should be elected is not their status but their specific measures for Clearviews’s future.

Finally, the arguer commits a fallacy of "either-or" in assuming that if FB is not competent for the position, AG is the only choice. However, common sense tells us there are always many other better candidates we can elect. The arguer should better take account of those alternatives and compare them with FB and AG before draw the conclusion that we should elect AG as the next mayor.

All in all, the conclusion arrived at in this argument is unpersuasive before more strong evidences can be provided and more rigorous reasoning can be exercised. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer should first conduct some investigations about the environment to ensure that the condition in Clearview does be getting worse. And instead of comparing the status of FB and AG, the arguer should pay more attention to their attitudes to environmental protection. In addition, other candidates should also become optional to the residents of Clearview.