ARGUMENT112【六人行7.30】by Eileen

Eileen312UID: 2648750

A112The 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: 401
TIME: 40min
Basing on the airport’s claim that the establishment of new runways will bring capacity increase and restore the ruined wetlands, the arguer recommends to adopt the new runway plan due to it will reduce flight delays and improve the environment. However, the speaker’s assertion relies on series of groundless reasoning and thus is unpersuasive.

To start with, the arguer takes it for granted that new runways would better the situation of severely delayed flights. Yet, the mere fact that larger capacity is available with the help of new runways hardly suffices to infer the reduction in flight delaying phenomenon. Without better evidence of the causal relationship between insufficient capacity and flight delays, it might as well that increased capacity would result in more complex management, which, in turn, makes the flight delay situation more serious.

Another dubious point made by the speaker is that the filling of the bay would naturally rebuild the damaged wetland system. However, how could the area of the runway restore the wetland which is 100 acres larger? Probably, the missed 100 acres are so important that the wetland would still be paralyzed even after the recovering of 900 acres. Besides, even if the filling of the bay might effectively restore the wetland, without ruling out these and other reasons why the wetland was previous damaged, the speaker cannot convince me that the restoring makes sense, because disappearing of the wetland might as well part of a reasonable city plan.

Even if the new runway project could successfully rebuild the once broken wetland system, the arguer cannot justifiably infer that the restoration of the wetland would necessarily be helpful for the environment. It is possible that sole wetland without balanced quantity and species of plants, animals, or micro-organisms, the wetland would fall into smelly dead land, not to mention improving the environment. Or perhaps, the wetland has been destroyed for so long a period that the environment has already been rebalanced, while the establishment of the new ecological wetland might broke the balance and thus damage the whole environment.

In conclusion, the speaker’s recommendation is logically unwarranted. To strengthen the argument, the speaker should provide better evidence of cause-and-effect relationship between the airport capacity and the flight delaying phenomenon, the reason why the wetland was destroyed during the industrialization, better evidence to guarantee the success in the wetland restoration, and the state of the already existing environment.

echo23loveUID: 2802443

A112The 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: 401
TIME: 40min
Basing on the airport’s claim that the establishment of new runways will bring capacity increase and restore the ruined此处可以不用同义替换，ruin是无法修复的，过于严重了 wetlands, the arguer recommends to adopt the new runway plan ,due to it will reduce flight delays and improve the environment. However, the speaker’s assertion relies on series of groundless reasoning and thus is unpersuasive.

To start with, the arguer takes it for granted that new runways would better the situation of severely delayed flights. Yet, the mere fact that larger capacity is available with the help of new runways hardly sufficessufficient to infer the reduction in flight delaying phenomenon. Without better evidence of the causal relationship between insufficient capacity and flight delays, it might as well that increased capacity would result in more complex management, which, in turn, makes the flight delay situation more serious.

Another dubious point made by the speaker is that the filling of the bay would naturally rebuild the damaged wetland system. However, how could the area of the runway restore the wetland which is 100 acres larger? Probably, the missed 100 acres are so important that the wetland would still be paralyzed even after the recovering of 900 acres. Besides, even if the filling of the bay might effectively restore the wetland, without ruling out these and other reasons why the wetland was previous damaged, the speaker cannot convince me that the restoring makes sense, because disappearing of the wetland might as well part of a reasonable city plan.

Even if the new runway project could successfully rebuild the once broken wetland system, the arguer cannot justifiably infer that the restoration of the wetland would necessarily be helpful for the environment. It is possible that sole wetland without balanced quantity and species of plants, animals, or micro-organisms, the wetland would fall into smelly dead land, not to mention improving the environment. Or perhaps, the wetland has been destroyed for so long a period that the environment has already been rebalanced, while the establishment of the new ecological wetland might broke the balance and thus damage the whole environment.

In conclusion, the speaker’s recommendation is logically unwarranted. To strengthen the argument, the speaker should provide better evidence of cause-and-effect relationship between the airport capacity and the flight delaying phenomenonflight delay就可以了, the reason why the wetland was destroyed during the industrialization, better evidence to guarantee the success in the wetland restoration, and the state of the already existing environment.
逻辑上没有问题，模板功能句用的很恰当，
不好意思这两天有事所以改的比较晚。

xyjprcUID: 2412778

第三段，是不是理解有偏差？机场方面准备修复的是另一块工业化而被破坏的湿地，而不是用填海来修复。