"风雨与共" 第二周 Argument 7 by【9】

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

今天有点不在状态，唉，先发了，慢慢修改吧.......


Argument 7.The following appeared in a letter to the editor of theClearview newspaper.
"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview shouldvote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather thanfor Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the currentmembers are not protecting our environment. For example, during the past yearthe number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels haveincreased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients withrespiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems inClearview will certainly be solved."

1．作者认为下一年的市长选举，我们要选A，不要选F，因为F是city-counciler
2．其次选择A理由也存在争议，虽然A是一个环保组织的成员，那他就一定会保护环境吗？文章没有证据指出，可能A是为了选举才去加入的。
3．作者认为F不合适的理由也是站不住脚的。F是town council的一员，council的其他人不保护环境不代表F也不，可能F是其中的环保提倡者。作为town council的一员，F反而更了解C的一切，更有利于C的发展。
4．就算F不保护环境，作者的例子也不能成立，去年增加的工厂不能说明空气污染是工厂造成的，可能这些工厂都是环保达标的绿色工厂。结论过于武断。
5．另外，医院呼吸道疾病患者增长，没有证据指出是因为空气污染造成的，肯能是最近天气变化导致感冒增加或者是流感爆发。
6．就算A真的比F好，但A就是最好的选择了么？没有数据显示不存在其他更好的候选人。

In this letter, the author recommends that residents of Clearview should vote Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, in the mayor next term, rather than Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearview town council of which the current members care little about the environment. To support his assertion the author pointed out the fact that a majority of factories was established during the past year which caused air pollution increasing. Moreover, he cited several statistics and facts that more or less indicated that the increasing patients with respiratory illness are related to the air pollution. At first glance, such assertion might seem to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits several substantial factors.

First of all, the arguer assumes that the increase of air pollution was caused by the number of factories' increase. But I have to point out that there is no evidence to substantiate this assumption. The argument did not provide any information about these factories. Maybe they are "Eco-Factory".Or perhaps the air pollution is caused by climate changing.  

Evenif these factories polluted the environment, merely citing the increasing numberof patients with respiratory problems can hardly be the persuasive foundationof the author’s judgment which is related to the environmental pollution.Perhaps the actual incidence of such illness is the same as it used to be. Orperhaps most of these health problems are only cold which may be caused bytemperature changing. Without better evidence to prove that the number ofpatients’ increase is aroused by worsening environmental problems, theassertion remains unconvincing.

Moreover,even though the relocation of factories is following the town council’s decision,the author failed to figure out that Braun was one of the decision-makers.Since the arguer can not provide any substantial evidence to support hisassumption, there is also a probability that Braun is an objector in the decision.It is equally possible that Braun was absent to the discussion. Thus, we learnnothing from the argument that Braun has any responsibility to the increase offactories.

Evenif Braun was the decision-maker of establishing factories.  Also there is no further detail given by theauthor that can illustrate that Green can be more effective. The only thing weknow about Green is that he is a member of Good Earth Coalition which isunacceptable that he has willingness and ability to solve Clearviews’senvironmental problems without any other information about Green’s experiences.

Finally,although Green is more effective than Braun in solving environmental problems,there is no clear evidence to prove that Green is also better than Braun on therests. It is a universal acknowledge that to be a mayor not only need toobserve the city’s environment but also requires abilities and passions onother aspects. Even if Green is entirely greater than Braun, the argument neverillustrates that only in these two persons will the Clearviews’s mayor be voted.There may be any one more suitable than Green to be the mayor.

Tosum up, the author fails to convince me that Green should be elected to be thenext mayor. To bolster his assumptions, the arguer must rule out all otherpossible reasons that Green is more effective than either Braun or any othercandidate in urban construction.

shawn_pysUID: 2770388

1# 咖啡盐
In this letter, the author recommends that residents of Clearview should vote Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, in the mayor next term, rather than Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearview town council of which the current members care little about the environment. To support his assertion the author pointed out the fact that a majority of factories was established during the past year which caused air pollution increasing.【我一直不知道这样写对不对，直接把作者的逻辑写出来，但是作者的逻辑是错的呀，有点矛盾，请教一下~】 Moreover, he cited several statistics and facts that more or less indicated that the increasing patients with respiratory illness are related to the air pollution. At first glance, such (an) assertion might seem to be somewhat convincing, but (a) further reflection reveals that it omits several substantial factors.

First of all, the arguer assumes that the increase of air pollution was caused by the number of factories' increase. But I have to point out that there is no evidence to substantiate this assumption. The argument did not provide any information about these factories. Maybe they are "Eco-Factory".Or perhaps the air pollution is caused by climate changing.

Even if these factories polluted the environment, merely citing the increasing number of patients with respiratory problems can hardly be the(a) persuasive foundation of the author’s judgment which is related to the environmental pollution.Perhaps the actual incidence of such illness is the same as it used to be.【没看懂】 Or perhaps most of these health problems are only cold which may be caused by temperature changing. Without better evidence to prove that the number of patients’ increase is aroused by worsening environmental problems, the assertion remains unconvincing.

Moreover,even though the relocation of factories is following the town council’s decision,the author failed to figure out that Braun was one of the decision-makers.Since the arguer can not provide any substantial evidence to support hisassumption, there is also a probability that Braun is an objector in(of, or against?) the decision.It is equally possible that Braun was absent to the discussion. Thus, we learn nothing from(we have no evidence for) the argument that Braun has any responsibility to the increase offactories.

Even if Braun was the decision-maker of establishing factories.  Also there is no further detail given by the author that can illustrate that Green can be more effective (in protecting environment). The only thing we know about Green is that he is a member of Good Earth Coalition which is unacceptable that he has willingness and ability to solve Clearview's environmental problems without any other information about Green’s experiences.

Finally,although Green is more effective than Braun in solving environmental problems,there is no clear evidence to prove that Green is also better than Braun on the rests. It is a universal acknowledge that to be a mayor not only need to observe the city’s environment but also requires abilities and passions on other aspects. Even if Green is entirely greater than Braun, the argument never illustrates that only in these two persons will the Clearviews’s mayor be voted.There may be any one more suitable than Green to be the mayor. 【总感觉主要关心的是否能解决环境问题，这才是作者关心的，不过这样写也是有道理的，希望能讨论一下】

To sum up, the author fails to convince me that Green should be elected to be the next mayor. To bolster his assumptions, the arguer must rule out all other possible reasons that Green is more effective than either Braun or any other candidate in urban construction.