【10G10Hawk】小组8月4日任务——Argument7

finalleUID: 2812504

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: 555          TIME: 01:00:00          DATE: 2010/8/4 22:35:48

In this argument, the arguer concludes that voters should vote for Ann Green,a member of the Good Earth Coalition, instead of Frank Braun,a member of the Clearview town council, and then the enviromental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved. First because our environment are not be protected by the current members. In addition, the arguer cites some examples happened during the past year. Plausible as it may seem, I am afraid that the argument can hardly bear further examination since there are several flaws in it.
To begin with, the arguer assumes that if residents of Clearview replace the current mayor, Frank Braun(F), with Ann Green[A], the enviroment will be solved definitly, while provides little evidence to support this assumption. As a mayor, he need to do many things to solve the environment problems by no means just one of the Good Earth Coalition can qualify. For example, collecting concrete information about factories, and coordinate with all departments to discuss the urban macro environmental planning. We are in the absence of what about the data of A in other aspects. . In any events, the aurger cannot straightly assume that concern about the environmental protection is the only reason available for voting.
Next, the assertion is unfair. That the current government does not care about protecting the environment for example, is doubling the number of factories over the past few years, air pollution is increasing, but the local hospital for treatment of respiratory patients more than 25% previously. But the argument does not tell us whether the new factory is polluting industries, these plants have not taken measures to prevent pollution, without such information we can not determine the impact of these factories for the degree of environmental pollution, because it is possible that these plants are less polluting new industries, or take effective measures. Talking about the air pollution problem, one which is facing a global state, the city's argument did not say the same characteristics of other cities, or in comparison with the earlier history, the figure is large or small, thus can not judge, on the other hand the air pollution is not necessarily because the city itself, because the wind flow, pollution may come from other places. The hospital, the lack of respiratory disease patients as determined on the basis increase, respiratory diseases occur for many reasons, there are natural, there because of aging, the thesis did not say whether the cause of new patients because of pollution caused.
Finally,the assertion of another candidate and unfair. Even if the argument really like the current government do not care about the environment said, that he does not care about the environment. Thesis does not provide whether the damage to the environment of the candidate's record, has been promoting measures that damage the environment. Can not be excluded because he was concerned about the environment, but his voice was drowned by the Government other sounds.
In sum, the conclusion is very arbitrary and unfair. The arguer did not provide the candidates address environmental issues in the results and capabilities, but also did not provide any evidence of the present government as well as another evidence of the candidates do not care about the environment. If you want to call voters agreed with him, he needs to provide further information in this regard.

一改

In this argument, the arguer concludes that voters should vote for Ann Green,a member of the Good Earth Coalition, instead of Frank Braun,a member of the Clearview town council, and then the enviromental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved. First because our environment are not be protected by the current members. In addition, the arguer cites some examples happened during the past year. Plausible as it may seem, I am afraid that the argument can hardly bear further examination since there are several flaws in it.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that if residents of Clearview replace the current mayor, Frank Braun(F), with Ann Green[A], the enviroment will be solved definitly, while provides little evidence to support this assumption. As a mayor, he need to do many things to solve the environment problems by no means just one of the Good Earth Coalition can qualify. For example, collecting concrete information about factories, and coordinate with all departments to discuss the urban macro environmental planning. We are in the absence of what about the data of A in other aspects. In any events, the aurger cannot straightly assume that concern about the environmental protection is the only reason available for voting.

Next, the examples about the current members are not protecting our environmen lend little support to the argument. First, the arguer focus on the number of factories had doubled, while the arguer fails to justify whether the new factories are polluting or they have not taken measures to prevent pollution. Without such information we can not determine the impact of these factories for the degree of environmental pollution, since it is possible that these factories are less polluting new industries and took effective measures. Second, talking about the air pollution problem, the result that air pollution levels have increased was a global situation, the arguer should supply the convinced comparison between Clearview and other cities, or now with the earlier history. However, the air pollution is not necessarily caused by Clearview itself, it is likely that due to the wind, pollution may come from other places. Third, the arguer
cannot confidently conclude that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses is the result of environment .Respiratory diseases occurs for many reasons, natural or aging.


Finally, even if the current government really did not care about the environment as the argument, the arguer unfairly equates these behaviors with Frank Braun, while does not mention a word about whether he has been promoting measures that polluted the environment. It is highly possible that Frank Braun was concerned about the environment, but his voice was drowned by other who were opposed to him. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the credibility of the author's conclusion.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands.To better substantiate it, the arguer has to provide actual reason or reasons for the candidates to address environmental issues and capacity results, and how the present government as well as Frank Braun do not care about the environment.

=========================================================二改

In this argument, the arguer concludes that voters should vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election,a member of the Good Earth Coalition, instead of Frank Braun,
a member of the Clearview town council, and then the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved. First,
the arguer states that our environment are not be protected by the current members. In addition, the arguer cites some examples happened during the past year. Plausible as it may seem, I am afraid that the argument can hardly bear further examination since there are several flaws in it.

To begin with, the arguer assumes that if residents of Clearview replace the current mayor, Frank Braun(F), with Ann Green[A], the enviroment will be solved definitly, while provides little evidence to support this assumption. As a mayor, he needs to do many things to solve the environment problems by no means just one of the Good Earth Coalition can qualify. For example, collect
concrete information about factories, and coordinate with all departments to discuss the urban macro environmental planning. Besides, we are in the absence of what about the data of A in other aspects. Perhaps,  handling official business was out of A's power, it's hard for him to be a good  mayor. In any events, the aurger cannot straightly assume that concern about the environmental protection is the only reason available for voting.

Next, the examples
about the current members are not protecting our environmen lend little support to the argument. First, the arguer focus on the number of factories had doubled, while the arguer fails to justify whether the new factories
are polluting or they have not taken measures to prevent pollution. Without such information we can not determine the impact of these factories for the degree of environmental pollution, since it is possible that these factories are less polluting new industries and took effective measures. Second, talking about the air pollution problem, the result that air pollution levels have increased was a global situation,
the arguer should supply the convinced comparison between Clearview and other cities, or now with the earlier history.
However, the air pollution is not necessarily caused
by
Clearview itself, it is likely that due to the wind, pollution may come from other places. Third, the arguer
cannot confidently conclude that
the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses is the result of environment .
Respiratory diseases occurs for many reasons, natural or aging.


Finally, even if the current government really did not care about the environment as the argument, the arguer
unfairly equates these behaviors with Frank Braun, while does not mention a word
about
whether he has been promoting measures that polluted the environment. It is highly possible that Frank Braun was concerned about the environment, but his voice was drowned by other who were opposed to him. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the credibility of the author's conclusion.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands.
To better substantiate it, the arguer has to provide actual reason or reasons for the candidates to address environmental issues and capacity results, and how the present government as well as Frank Braun do not care about the environment.

finalleUID: 2812504

The notion that we should vote for Ann Green(AG) seems to be sound and convincing at the first glance【投票为了什么？为了mayor】. After all, he is a member of the Good earth Coalition(GEC),【后面的和AG没关系，希望写清楚】 the number of factories in Clearview(C)
has doubles, and
the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. However, close scrutiny of each of these evidence reveals than none of them lend credible support to the recommendation. The reason are stated as below.

First of all, the arguer judged the pollution levels have increased from the phenomena that the number of factories has doubled and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses, which is【are你写了两件事情】
doubtable. As the arguer does【did】 not provide any information about the factories, chances are that even the total number of factories has doubled, the pollution caused by each of them is decreased more than half, which means the total pollution has also decreased at the same time. And the 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses can not lead to the conclusion either. We do not know whether the population in P increased more than 25 percent. If so, the people with respiratory illnesses only provide evidence to show the pollution level in C decreased. Or maybe such increase of the number of people with respiratory illnesses is because the people today focus on the health problem that【were曾经】 overlooked by them, which means 【重复使用】they may caught the illness but do not go to hospital to treated it. Unless the arguer can ruling out all the possibilities I mentioned above, the mid-conclusion that the pollution levels increased is undermined.

Even if the pollution levels have increased, which is of course an unwarranted assumption, whether AG can solve the problem is unknown. It is true that he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. However, it is not strong enough to his abilities to solves problems like that. If he is just take part in such coalition but did not do any contribution or successfully solve a case while Frank Braun(FB) have already worked out several complicated pollution problems , the conclusion will become that if people in C elect AG, the environmental problems in C will certainly not be solved.

Furthermore, granted that AG can solve environment problems better than FB, it can not support the conclusion. Which candidate to vote is not only based on the abilities to solve environment problems. Otherwise every America president candidate would just need to provide【或许prove更好？证明而不是提供】 how they can solve those pollutions around the world, which is definitely not the truth. We have to test the candidate from all aspects, like the abilities to stimulate the economic, the power to run the programs, the reputation is the whole society and so on.【感觉和第一段有点重复】

To sum up, after pointing out so many flaws in the argument, now we can say that all these evidence can not be used to support the recommendation. Maybe the people in C should vote AG, but before make such recommendation, the arguer have to provide more persuasive, practical and professional research and survey like the facts to show their abilities to solve different problems or the evidence to prove AG a better leader than FB.【直接写出应该怎么证明更好】
感谢word自动修正单词

===============================================================================================================================================
二改
In this argument, the author recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election rather than Frank Braun. In order to make the recommendation convincing and compelling, he/she cites several evidences to bolster it, which involve the increasing of factories in Clearview, and respiratory illnesses have raised 25%. It appears plausible to achieve the conclusion at the first glance, while several persuasive statistics should be covered as well.


The most conspicuous flaw is that the author decisively asserts if they elect Ann Green the environmental problems will be solved. Although Ann is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, there is no evidence to indicate that Ann will dedicate to solve the city's air pollution or whether Ann is qualified in solving these problems. Because there are many relations should be adjusted before solving the
environmental
problems, and Ann should acquaint with industry production as well【至少是污染方面】, the author has not provided whether Ann has these capacities【与前面有所重复在句型和内容上】, so the conclusion is not convincing.
你有很多空格没空单词连在一起，希望下次改进。
Furthermore, it is mentioned in the argument that the
number of
factories have doubled during the past. However, he/she fails to provide what do these factories mainly produce,it is likely that they don't emit any dirty and poisonous air at all【这个论据不太给力，因为不可能没有污染】, for example they are electronic factories, which just process the electronic productions, such as cell phone and PDA, never discharging dirty air at all【这个论证，怎么说，生产电子产品也会有污染的，当然具体是什么我就不百度了】. In addition, the author fails to provide whether these factories have deal with air pollution, and whether the air pollution can be ascribed to them. Perhaps, they have deal with the pollution very well, or the dirty air is produced by other nearby cities rather than the local factories, and it has been brought to their city by winds. It is, therefore, reasonable for the author to make clear these problems before coming to the conclusion.

Again, are the illnesses caused by air pollution? As we all know, many reasons can contribute to respiratory illness, such as genetic
factors
and climatic condition. The author should provide more strong statistics about what results in it, meanwhile, the sex, age and other physical status of the illnesses【应该写清楚是和疾病有关的具体因素信息】
have not be provided【也用了好多次，换个？】
as well, it is possible many of them are old persons, and their illnesses do not result from air pollution, but rather the aging of their
respiratory
system.

In sum, it is kind
for the author to
dedicate to help the residents to improve healthy【这句话有什么含义？】.
His/Her recommendation seems to be rational at the first glance, but more strong statisticS and other possible factors, such as whether Ann is the best candidate to solve the pollution and serve as the position, as well as what is primarily accounted for the environmental problem, etc should be well reasoned.

agnes2010UID: 2794922

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: 528          TIME: 00:46:07          DATE: 2010-8-4 22:56:16

The arguer asserts that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, as their next mayor instead of Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council. The arguer draws such a conclusion only because the current members in the town council are not devoting to environmental protection. Though the arguer sited several evidence to support his/her solution, careful investigation into this statements will expose the logical flaws lying in it.

First of all, the arguer claims that it is the current members not Frank Braun alone that are not protecting environment. Yet, only because Frank Braun works in the town council, the arguer considers him not to protect environment, which is hasty to a large extent. Since the arguer has not given any evidence that all the members including Frank are not with the sense of environmental protection or Frank did do something unenvironmental-frendly, it is hard for readers to reach the agreement that Frank Braun can not be the protential mayor.

In addition, even if Frank did do something bad to environmental protection, a problem still exists because the arguer only provides the clue of the disadvantages of Frank while never attesting Ann is good in everything. Just with the evidence given above, the readers can hardly rule out the possibility that Ann Green, though working for the Good Earth Coalition, can still not apply the knowledge of protecting environment into practice. The arguer fails to give powerful evidence to compare Ane with Frank, thus making his assertion that residents will vote for Ann rather than Frank unconvincing and unpersuasive.

What's more, The arguer lists several evidence that the environment situation in the town is worse than before in order to show how unconciouse Frank and the town council are. However, none of the evidences can directly and perfectly prove the sin of Frank. The arguer sited that the number of factories has doubled while perhaps all of these factories never release any polluted water or gas; the arguer claims that air pollution levels have increased while perhaps the severe air pollution in other towns has expanded to the local town and worsen the local enviornment; the arguer speakes that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illness while perhaps the most of the patients are suffering from flus caused by the local changeable climate. Without providing the direct evidence, it is ex parte for the arguer to make such assertion.

Last but not least, even if all the evidence provided above can well support the assertion that Frank Braun and the council members are not protecting the environment, it is still unrational to make a conclusion that electing Ann Green can slve all the environmental problems. The arguer is so hasty that he/she never thinks about the protential problems aroused when Ann is selected as the mayor.

In Sum, there are so many flaws lying in the arguments. In order to attest the arguer's assertion, it is advisable to give more information of what Ann and Frank done in the environmental protecion and compare them to draw a conclusion. Further research will be essential.

==========================================
自改一

The arguer asserts that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, as their next mayor instead of Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council. The arguer claims that only because the current members in the town council are not devoting to environmental protection. Though the arguer sited several evidence to support his/her solution, careful investigation into this statements will expose the logical flaws lying in it.

First of all, the arguer claims that it is the current members not Frank Braun alone that are not protecting environment. Yet, only because Frank Braun works in the town council, the arguer considers him not to protect environment, which is hasty to a large extent. Since the arguer has not given any evidence that all the members including Frank are not have the sense of environmental protection or what Frank exactly did to harm the environment, it is hard for readers to reach the agreement that Frank Braun can not be the protential mayor.

In addition, even if Frank did do something bad to environmental protection, a problem still exists because the arguer only provides the clue of the disadvantages of Frank while never attesting Ann is good in everything. Just with the evidence given above, the readers can hardly rule out the possibility that Ann Green, though working for the Good Earth Coalition, can still not apply the conception of protecting environment into practice. The arguer fails to give powerful evidence to compare Ane with Frank, thus making his assertion that residents will vote for Ann rather than Frank unconvincing and unpersuasive.

What's more, The arguer lists several evidence that the environment situation in the town is worse than before in order to show how unconciouse Frank and the town council are. However, none of the evidences can directly and perfectly prove the sin of Frank. The arguer sited that the number of factories has doubled while perhaps all of these factories never release any polluted water or gas; the arguer claims that air pollution levels have increased while perhaps the severe air pollution in other towns has expanded to the local town and worsen the local enviornment; the arguer speakes that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illness while perhaps the most of the patients are suffering from flus caused by the local changeable climate. Without providing the direct evidence, it is ex parte for the arguer to make such assertion.

Last but not least, even if all the evidence provided above can well support the assertion that Frank Braun and the council members are not protecting the environment, it is still unrational to make a conclusion that electing Ann Green can solve all the environmental problems. The arguer fails to attest the ability of Ann Green to show how great she can do to protect environment or how well she can serve as a mayor. All the arguer gives is that the rival of Ann Green fails to do well, which alone can not make any sense to conclude that Ann can solve all the problems. The arguer is so hasty that he/she never thinks about the protential problems aroused when Ann is selected as the mayor.

In Sum, there are so many flaws lying in the arguments. In order to attest the arguer's assertion, it is advisable to give more information of what Ann and Frank done in the environmental protecion and compare them to draw a conclusion. Further research will be essential.

agnes2010UID: 2794922

改[02]
green- 语法错误
blue-好词好句
red-不理解的地方
purple-建议

Nowadays, the environment is a hot issue. In this letter, the author obviously put the environment protection in the first place in the work of a mayor, and ignored the whole responsibility of a qualified mayor. His argument seems well-reasoned, but after the analogy below we can find some flaws.【感觉首句放在argu的开篇感觉怪怪的，我已开始看的时候以为是要讲一个关于环境问题的issue呢~个人建议第一句就开门见山一点~】

To begin with, the author pointed out that Ann Green, as a member of the Good Earth Coalition, given the mayoralty, will certainly solve the environmental problems in Clearview. There is no evidence to demonstrate that Ann Green being in the coalition had dedicated herself to the protection of the environment. Judging a person whether he or she has an active attitude toward the natural surroundings doesn’t depend on if he or she has a identification of some institution connected to the environment, but what concrete contributions the person has made to protect our earth.【这句分析的很到位！学习~语言也尤其出色】 Thus, it is entirely possible that in the Clearview Town Council Frank Braun always tend to keep green, but opposed by other members.

Moreover, the examples given by the author are not persuasive. Firstly, the air pollution problem might be caused by other factors such as the increase of the number of the motor vehicles or the climate phenomenon, just like sand storm. Secondly, the respiratory ailment could also be in connection with the turning of the seasons, and as we all know, in this kind of period, the respiratory illness like cold and flu is apt to outbreak among people. Therefore, the conclusion drawn from the two examples that the members of the local council are not protecting the environment is unreasonable.【这一段的可能性也分析的挺全面的~rose的语言好流畅啊~感觉读起来很顺~】

Finally, the author didn’t realize the meaning of being a mayor. If a mayor put all the money and effort upon the environment protection at the cost of the destroy of the economic construction, the residents will certainly suffer from the regression of the standard of living. The double of the number of the factories which increased the economic development in the city was also out of the consideration of the progress of the whole city.【这里的用法不知是否正确，我不是很理解~】 We can conclude that even if Ann Green has an active attitude toward the environment, taking the factors that will certainly influence the developing level of Clearview, she may probably take measures to set other factories in the city.【这一段是想说明做市长的意义不仅仅在于只重视环境保护，原文作者忽略了这一点，我觉得应该再重点指出原文作者忽略了什么。最后说我们可以conclude的这一部分可以作为可能性进行阐述。总之这一顿读上去觉得攻击的力度不是很有针对性~】

In summary, without more investigation of the achievement in the field of environment protection from the two candidates cannot the author come to the conclusion, and he or she is supposed see the balance between the green surroundings and the social development.

【rose的语言很棒哦~学习~ 第一段分析两个候选人 第二段分析给出的理由 第三段攻击市长的意义，就是感觉段与段之间的衔接不够顺畅，思路上可能不太流畅呢~个人的一点小建议~供参考哦~】

==============================================
改[11]
green- 语法错误
blue-好词好句
red-不理解的地方
purple-建议

In this argument, the author draws a hasty conclusion that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, belonging to the Good Earth Coalition instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of the Cleanview town council, in the next mayoral election. For he thinks the current members are not protecting the environment. His suggestion, in my personal view, is unconvincing, as well as unfair. On one hand, although the arguer has provided some so called examples, showing the current members are not protecting the environment. A second look would reveal hoe groundless the evidences he cited are .

First, the increasing number is not indicating heavier pollution.【首句尽量更加明确些吧，一下子跳出来一个the increasing number有点突兀，读者还要去找argu中哪里有the increasing number.】 We have got no information about the real condition of the added factories. It is possible that the new factories are manufactories, making their products only by hand without polluting the city; It is also possible the factories have take strict measures to avoid pollution. On the contrary, doubling the factories reveals the current leader may lead to the growth of the city economy, which would bring a lot to the citizens.

Second, more air pollution also dose not mean they are not caring about the environment, after all, air pollution is just an aspect of all factors that could review the quality of where we are living. Third, concerning the number of inspiring patients has also increased, the author simply own it to worse surroundings, is still assertive. What if other kinds of disease decreased? Should it also be a implication of better environment? If so, what's the real condition in the city?

What's more, the author ignored the whole change of environment maybe in the country, even in the world. As is known to all, with the developing of our society, the problem of pollution is all over the earth. Even if current members have taken several measure to do the protection, can they stop the trendency? Without comparing the environment in Clearview with nearby cities, there is no reason to claim nothing has down by the current goverment.

On the other hand, granted current members are really not protecting the surroundings, it is unfair to say Frank Braun will do the same thing as them, at the same time, no one could ensure if Ann will take measures as the author's prediction if she was elected. Perhaps Frank is more concerning about how to decline pollution, and maybe he is a expert in this field. No information was given about the two candidits' capacity and politics view, it is not responsible to descide who is better fit to be the leader.
【看到这里我发现sharon主要在攻击文章的两个部分：一个是作者给出的例子，另一方面是作者断言Fank不好Ann好的错误，我的建议是在前三段之前做个概括句，讲明作者自身给出的example具有漏洞，然后再分说3点漏洞，之后再来on the other hand，这样子的条理也许会更清楚些~~另外在另一方面这边的攻击，sharon说的很明确，但建议增加一点可能性的分析，更有利说明作者的遗漏，这样能使文章更饱满些吧~~个人建议，供参考~】

To sum up, the author's conclusion is not persuasive as it stands. Before I accept his recommendation, he must provide more substantial evidence to show the current members' no protection. Additionally, he'd better provide more information of the two candidits so that the citizens could make a better and fair choice.
【总体感觉这篇文章每个攻击都很明确，语言简练易懂，但是条理上稍有欠缺，建议sharon再理一理~~加油！】

finalleUID: 2812504

二改区

sharonyeUID: 2862009

改4
The arguer asserts that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, as their next mayor instead of Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council. The arguer draws such a conclusion only because（我觉得是he or she think,应为你下文也推翻了这个结论） the current members in the town council are not devoting to environmental protection. Though the arguer sited several evidence to support his/her solution, careful investigation into this statements will expose the logical flaws lying in it.

First of all, the arguer claims that it is the current members not Frank Braun alone that are not protecting environment. Yet, only because Frank Braun works in the town council, the arguer considers him not to protect environment, which is hasty to a large extent. Since the arguer has not given any evidence that all the members including Frank are not with the sense（虽然理解，但没见过） of environmental protection or Frank did do something unenvironmental-frendly（这句话感觉和上面不停反复的在表达同一个意思）, it is hard for readers to reach the agreement that Frank Braun can not be the protential mayor.（这段话写得很清晰，有种泉水叮咚的感觉，可是内容好像不太多）
In addition, even if Frank did do something bad to environmental protection, a problem still exists because the arguer only provides the clue of the disadvantages of Frank while never attesting Ann is good in everything. Just with the evidence given above, the readers can hardly rule out the possibility that Ann Green, though working for the Good Earth Coalition, can still not apply the knowledge （用这个词合适么^_^）of protecting environment into practice. The arguer fails to give powerful evidence to compare Ane with Frank, thus making his assertion that residents will vote for Ann rather than Frank unconvincing and unpersuasive.

What's more, The arguer lists several evidence that the environment situation in the town is worse than before in order to show how unconciouse Frank and the town council are. However, none of the evidences can directly and perfectly prove the sin of Frank. The arguer sited that the number of factories has doubled while perhaps all of these factories never release any polluted water or gas; the arguer claims that air pollution levels have increased while perhaps the severe air pollution in other towns has expanded to the local town and worsen the local enviornment; the arguer speakes that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illness while perhaps the most of the patients are suffering from flus caused by the local changeable climate. Without providing the direct evidence, it is ex parte for the arguer to make such assertion.（这段很充实，也很清楚）

Last but not least, even if all the evidence provided above can well support the assertion that Frank Braun and the council members are not protecting the environment, it is still unrational to make a conclusion that electing Ann Green can slve all the environmental problems. The arguer is so hasty that he/she never thinks about the protential problems aroused when Ann is selected as the mayor.（在第三段就写了类似的意思啊，你再考虑一下）
In Sum, there are so many flaws lying in the arguments. In order to attest the arguer's assertion, it is advisable to give more information of what Ann and Frank done in the environmental protecion and compare them to draw a conclusion. Further research will be essential.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________改aus
In this letter, the author recommends that people in Clearview should vote for Ann Green who is from Good Earth Coalition instead of Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearviw town council because Frank Braun did not protect the environment during the tenure in the town council. To support this recommendation, the author cites that the number of factories in Clearviw has double and 25 percent more people get respiratory illness. However, this argument suffers from several logical flaws which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the mere fact that the factories in Clearview are twice as many as that of one year before lends no support that the environment in Clearviw is deteriorating. Perhaps these factories are quite environmental friendly and are not releasing dangerous chemicals into the environmental at all. Without providing more information about the whole manufacturing process of these factories, it is unjustifiable for the author to conclude that the pollution level has increased solely based on the doubled number of the factories.
In addition, the fact that the local hospital treated 25 percents more percents patients
with respiratory illness proves nothing about that the air pollution has aggravated. It is entirely possible that many people in Clearviw have already suffered from respiratory illness for quite a long time, but their symptoms are not serious so they decided not to go to see the doctor until last year they raised their health awareness and started to seek treatment in the hospital（这里说的太细了吧，感觉实在强词夺理，不过话说回来，argu确实有好多强词夺理的地方，不过最好不要写得这么细嘛，这个现象太特殊了）. And it is also quite possible that many patients treated in the hospital were from other places and they had respiratory problems before they came to Clearview. Both scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the argument greatly.
Even granted that the air pollution is indeed getting worse, the author unfairly assumes that Frank Braun is responsible for it. Since we are not informed Frank Braun's role in the town council, perhaps Frank Braun is in charge of the educational matters rather than the environmental or economic issues.And the air pollution has nothing to do with him. Without considering this possibility, the author cannot persuade the voters not to vote for Frank Braun.
Finally yet importantly, the author unjustifiably concludes that Ann Green would solve all the environmental problems if elected. However, little evidences are given except that Ann Green was from Good Earth Coalition. Without more information about Ann Green and the Good Earth Coalition, it is unwise for the voters to vote for Ann Green（说得具体一点，比如ann不会解决问题啥的）.
To sum up, the author's claim that residents should vote for Ann Green is not well supported. To bolster the conclusion, the author should provide adequate evidence to show that the environment is indeed worsening in Clearview and Frank Braun should be blamed for it. Also, I need more information about Ann Green and her organization to judge whether she could tackle the environmental problems.