【Snickers小组】11月19日 argument7 by彼年豆蔻

彼年豆蔻UID: 2791778

In this argument, the author suggests that the Clearview residents should vote for Ann Green in next mayoral election because she would certainly solve the environmental problems for the town. And the arguer also provides several evidences to support his conclusion. At first glance I found this argument is somewhat convincing, but further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons.

First of all, the arguer states that the members in current town council don't protect the environment, and he provide some pieces of information to prove this contention, such as the number of factories has doubled last year, air pollution level also has increased, and the patients who had respiratory illness has increased by 25 percent. However, in fact all these evidence have no causal relationship with the conclusion. The increasing of factories dosen't mean the town council do not take measures protect the environment. Although the air pollution level has increased last year, it is still very likely that the council has done many things to control it or the condition may get worse. Also, the respiratory illness is not necessarily caused by air pollution, its raise may result from the unusual cold weather or else. Thus we can not draw the conclusion from this evidence. In fact, the arguer doesn't provide any proofs to demonstrate that the members of town council make no efforts on protecting the environment.

Second, the reason that the arguer gives to explain why the citizens should vote for Ann Green is that she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. However, the arguer doesn't give any information to show whatever the coalition is. Maybe it is a group that has nothing to do with the environmental protection. Even assuming this is indeed a environmental group, the arguer still fails to show whether Ann Green contributes to this group or not. In other words, we cannot know whether she ever did anything to protect the environment or not, thus we can also not identify her as a protector of the environment.

Last but not least, even if Ann Green is a environmental protector, it doesn't necessarily mean the environmental problems can be solved after her getting on the stage. After all, merely intention and hope cannot complete this hard task.

To sum up, this is a weak argument since the arguer fails to provide any reliable evidence to support it. To make it more convincing, the arguer should show us that the members of council indeed make no efforts on environmental problems and Ann Green really would do effective work on this problem.

zhangwanyingUID: 2775533

In this argument, the author suggests that the Clearview residents should vote for Ann Green in next mayoral election because she would certainly solve the environmental problems for the town. And the arguer also provides several evidences to support his conclusion. (这句话太泛了，最好稍微详细一点)At first glance I found this argument is somewhat convincing, but further reflection tells me that I cannot agree with it for the following reasons.（总是at first glance，这样写的人太多了，最好换换，关于开头写法可以参考下这个：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1073291-1-1.html）

First of all, the arguer states that the members in current town council don't protect the environment, and he provide some pieces of information to prove this contention, such as the number of factories has doubled last year, air pollution level also has increased, and the patients who had respiratory illness has increased by 25 percent. However, in fact all these evidence have no causal relationship with（have no causal relationship with the conclusion 貌似不妥，应该是两件事情没有因果关系，而不是事情和结论没有因果关系） the conclusion. The increasing of factories dosen't mean the town council do not take measures protect the environment. Although the air pollution level has increased last year, it is still very likely that the council has done many things （tried their best）to control it or(个人感觉otherwise好点) the condition may get worse. Also, the respiratory illness is not necessarily caused by air pollution, its raise may result from the unusual cold weather or else. Thus we can not draw the conclusion from this evidence. In fact, the arguer doesn't provide any proofs to demonstrate that the members of town council make no efforts on protecting the environment.

Second, the reason that the arguer gives to explain why the citizens should vote for Ann Green is that she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. However, the arguer doesn't give any information to show whatever the coalition is. Maybe it is a group that has nothing to do with the environmental protection. Even assuming this is indeed a environmental group, the arguer still fails to show whether Ann Green contributes to this group or not. In other words, we cannot know whether she ever did anything to protect the environment or not, thus we can also not identify her as a protector of the environment.

Last but not least, even if Ann Green is a environmental protector, it doesn't necessarily mean the environmental problems can be solved after her getting on the stage. After all, merely intention and hope cannot complete this hard task.（这段太短，其实还有一个可以攻击的地方，就是，即便town council 不环保， 也没有证据表明 Frank 不环保）

To sum up, this is a weak argument since the arguer fails to provide any reliable evidence to support it. To make it more convincing, the arguer should show us that the members of council indeed make no efforts on environmental problems and Ann Green really would do effective work on this problem.