狠拍砖！！Argument112【六人行小组7.30】by Echo

echo23loveUID: 2802443

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: 380
TIME: 00:60:00
DATE: 2010/7/30 20:50:24

In this proposal, the speaker support that
the airport should build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. To support this conclusion the speaker cites the fact that if the airport company was permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetland in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged. The speaker claim that this decision can benefit both the airport and the environment. The argument is problematic in several critical respects.

First of all, the argument depends on the assumption that the airport promised to restore 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. However, we are not informed how bad the wetland have previously been damaged. It is possible that, although the airport company would like to do the restoration, the wetlands cannot recover any more because of badly damaged by the industrialization. If true, this fact would serve to refute the speaker's conclusion that new runways should be build.

Secondly, the argument assumes that
the only way to reduce the flight delays is to build new runways .However, it is entirely possible that arrange more flight in order may reduce the flight delays. Common sense tells me that this is a reasonable possibility, because the flight delay in this airport in the past may basically due to the lack of order. Moreover, even if more flight delays is because the lacking of
new runaways, it is entirely possible that the company can have other method to solve this problem, for example, decrease the number of flight get off in the same time.

Thirdly, the argument rests on the dubious assumption that depending on the airport's promise about funding for restoration of wetland . While this might be the case, it is not right to continue harming our environment. It is not a right decision, we should not keeping do things to harm the environment.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide clear evidence that the decrease of flight delays is due to build the new runways, and the speaker should also provide the evidence that its new runaways will do little harm to the environment.

Eileen312UID: 2648750

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: 380
TIME: 00:60:00
DATE: 2010/7/30 20:50:24
In this proposal, the speaker support that the airport should build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. To support this conclusion the speaker cites the fact that if the airport company was permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetland in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged. The speaker claim that this decision can benefit both the airport and the environment. [没有很好地“改述”] The argument is problematic in several critical respects.

First of all, the argument depends on the assumption that the airport promised to restore 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. However, we are not informed how bad the wetland have previously been damaged. It is possible that, although the airport company would like to do the restoration, the wetlands cannot recover any more because of badly damaged by the industrialization. If true, this fact would serve to refute the speaker's conclusion that new runways should be build.

Secondly, the argument assumes that the only way to reduce the flight delays is to build new runways .However, it is entirely possible that arrange more flight in order may reduce the flight delays. Common sense tells me that this is a reasonable possibility, because the flight delay in this airport in the past may basically due to the lack of order. Moreover, even if more flight delays is because the lacking of new runaways, it is entirely possible that the company can have other method to solve this problem, for example, decrease the number of flight get off in the same time.

Thirdly, the argument rests on the dubious assumption that depending on the airport's promise about funding for restoration of wetland[that 后面什么意思，没有动词啊]. While this might be the case, it is not right to continue harming our environment. It is not a right decision, we should not keeping do things to harm the environment.[ keeping do things to harm the environment具体指什么][这一段讲的什么不是很清楚]

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide clear evidence that the decrease of flight delays is due to build the new runways, and the speaker should also provide the evidence that its new runaways will do little harm to the environment.

[整体论述逻辑没问题；但是冗繁的句子过多，建议同一件事换一种说法]
[sorry, 有事耽误了，这么晚才改完]