[风雨与共] 第二周argument习作 argument 7 by 【7】

shawn_pysUID：2770388

7. The following appeared in a letter to theeditor of the Clearview newspaper.
"In the nextmayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is amember of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member ofthe Clearview town council, because the current members are not protecting ourenvironment. For example, during the past year the number of factories inClearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased, and the localhospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If weelect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly besolved."


In this article, the author recommends that in order to solve the environmental problems in Clearview we should vote for Ann Green to become the next major of Clearview. To support his argument, he gives the evidences: 1) Ann Green is a member of Good Earth Coalition; 2) Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council whose current members as the author said are not protecting environment. And to prove this, he cites some facts happened last year. At the first glance, this argument appears to be seemingly persuasive, but further reflection unveils that is omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument.

First of all, the author's argument is based on an assumption that the current members of the Clearview town council are not protecting environment. To demonstrate this, the author provides that during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled. However there is no evidence to prove that the pollution aggravating is relative to the factories' increase. Perhaps the growing pollution is cause by the increasing number of automobiles. The author makes a fallacy of hasty generalization.

Another reason the writer gives to indicate how much the pollution have increased is that last year the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. Yet we have no information about the situations before last year, so that it was very possible that the increase is just a returning to ordinary level. And, there is no proof saying that the additional patients are caused for the air pollution. Probably, there had been a worse epidemic disease than preceding years. All we know about the pollution is it increased. As discussed above, the author's reasoning, that the current members of the town council didn't protecting environment, is totally unsound.

Granted that the town council wasn't protecting environment, we have no reason to infer that any member of it did so. On the contrary, when it comes to Ann Green, we can’t say a member of Good Earth Coalition must be environmentally friendly, let alone when we know nothing about the Good Earth Coalition. Therefore, it is unsounded that if Ann Green win the major election the situation will be improved.

To sum up, the writer's advice has several fatal flaws as discussed above. Hence it is unacceptable and of no persuasion as it stands. Yet, it could be substantiated by providing the evidence that Ann Green is indeed much friendlier to environment than Frank Braun. In addition, to further bolster the conclusion, the arguer should furnish the demonstration concerning the plan Ann Green willcarry out to solve the pollution problem.

victoryleeUID：2970664

In this article, the author recommends that in order to solve the environmental problems in Clearview we should vote for Ann Green to become the next major(mayor) of Clearview. To support his argument, he gives(listed感觉会好一些,还有范文里用过去式好像多些) the evidences: 1) Ann Green is a member of Good Earth Coalition; 2) Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council whose current members as the author said are( were said to be) not protecting environment. And to prove this(this 的指代比较模糊,不如the author’s assertion), he cites some facts happened last year(个人觉得在list evidences时可以把1\2归为一个,然后加入后面的那些phenomenon作为evidences会全面些). At the first glance, this argument appears to be seemingly persuasive, but further reflection unveils that is( it) omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument.

First of all, the author's argument is based on an assumption that the current members of the Clearview town council are not protecting environment. To demonstrate this, the author provides ( the fact) that during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled. However there is no evidence to prove that the pollution aggravating is relative to the factories' increase.(是不是应该先提出环境随着工厂增加恶化了然后再反驳) Perhaps the growing pollution is cause by the increasing number of automobiles. The author makes a fallacy of hasty generalization.

Another reason the writer gives to indicate how much the pollution have increased is that last year the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. Yet we have no information about the situations before last year, so that it was very possible that the increase is just a returning to ordinary level.(这个驳斥点很力,还可指出”25percent more 没有给出与什么对比”,然后再用你这个让步说就算默认与前年对比….) And, there is no proof saying that the additional patients are caused for(caused by) the air pollution. Probably, there had been a worse epidemic disease than preceding years. All we know about the pollution is it increased( got worse). As discussed above, the author's reasoning, that the current members of the town council didn't protecting environment, is totally unsound.

Granted that the town council wasn't protecting environment, we have no reason to infer that any member of it did so. On the contrary(这应该不是相反关系而是同样的), when it comes to Ann Green, we can’t say a member of Good Earth Coalition must be environmentally friendly, let alone when we know nothing about the Good Earth Coalition. Therefore, it is unsounded that if Ann Green win the major election the situation will be improved.

To sum up, the writer's advice has several fatal flaws as discussed above. Hence it is unacceptable and of no persuasion as it stands. Yet, it could be substantiated by providing the evidence that Ann Green is indeed much friendlier to environment than Frank Braun.(这个和你前面提到的驳斥点好像冲突) In addition, to further bolster the conclusion, the arguer should furnish the demonstration concerning the plan Ann Green willcarry out to solve the pollution problem.

victoryleeUID：2970664

文章思路很清晰,我要好好学习~~
我每次都乱得不行

shawn_pysUID：2770388

谢谢啦，语言还是差很多，还需要多加练习，相互学习~取长补短