【Flyer杀G作文组】1月20日作业argument 7

wagner1985UID: 2838595

1ARGUMENT NO.7

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."

In this passage, the author tries to persuade us to vote one of the candidate and abandon the other, for the reason that the organization which the first one belongs seems more likely to solve the serious environmental problem the city suffered. And the author do believes there is a strong relationship between the growing number of resperatory illness and the increases of the factories, which is strong enough in logic to convince us of the urgency of solving the problem. Although the evidence and facts seems plausible at first glance, regretfully, the persuvasiveness of the whole passage is undermined by some fallacies and unwarranted assumptions.
To begin with, according to the background information above, there is no reason to believe the increaseing number of respiratory illnesses in this city derived from the new factories. The author has not provided more details about thoes facotories, for example, we cannot know what kind of industry do these factories belong to. After all, not all kinds of industries could cause the enviroment problem which is related to respiratory illenesses. So without enough evidence, the only statistic data could hardly suffices to find out the main reason of the increasing rate of illnesss.
Even if we accept, as the author claims, that the increasing percents comes from the environment problems caused by the development of the new industry in this city, still, solving the problem may not seems as easy as the author said. After all, the government have to consider many aspects of the problem and attaches different level of importance to every side. As what we can see in reality, the environment problem could not and would not a easy taske for people. And we still can make an implication that radical policy may incurred opposite movement. So we cannot safely concludes that an enivironmentalist mayor could definitely find a solution,
Nor can we neglect the possibilities that a politician may change their position. Although people could one day stand at this point before the election, he/ she could still change to the opposite after winning. So there is still a risk which make us more calmness to consider the real position of the politician.
Also, we cannot neglect that if more and more people have the same concern about the environmental problems, then any side of the election may be forced to make a thorough consideration about this issue. Then the winning of other candidate may not means the problem will not solved finally.
Furthermore, to help the solving of the problem, promoting the candidacy of the environment coalition to win the election could not the only way to attain the goal. Perhaps the process of the election may have already aroused the public attention about the problem. And then anyone who take the charge of the whole city may solve that.
To sum up, the logic implication of the passage is too simple to leave so much fallacies. To make a better suggestion, the author should take more into account and provide more details about the problems which may help us understand the real reason.