寻人互改，不到一周了

gckgreenUID: 3022906

Argument 第七题：


The argument concludes that the residentsof Clearview should vote Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, to bethe next mayoral rather than Frank Braun in order to protect the localenvironment. To support this conclusion

, the author points out the fact that the factories in Clearview have doubledduring the past year, and that the air pollution levels have increased. However,as the following discussion shows, the argument is not well supported by thegiven evidence.

To begin with, the author claims that thepollution levels have increased in the past years. This point would be morepersuasive if the passage shows us some accurate data about the pollutionlevels. The mere fact that patients with respiratory illnesses treated in thelocal hospital have increased by 25 percent is scant evidence to support thisinference. Either an increase in population or an development of the localhospital will lead to the same phenomenon. Thus, without reliable data, theinference is entirely unconvincing.

Secondly, even the air pollution didincrease in the past year, no certain relation could be found between theincreasing number of factories and the worse air condition.
The common sense tells us that air pollutionis not a simple problem caused in one place. Factories in some cities nearbymight account for the air pollution. So without considering the other possiblereasons for the pollution, the author's assertion is not persuasive.

Thirdly, the argument fails to take thelocal economy into account. It is possible that compared with a littlepollution, an economic development would be more welcomed. The government mightnot afford the cost in reducing the pollution, and the residents, who might noteven survive the poverty, would certainly choose to increase their income first.So the author must indicate the local condition in many other aspects to give abetter support.

Finally, the argument is relied on theassumption that only Ann and Frank could be chose as the next mayor. The authorneglects a third possible choice that some other person, who can both improvethe economic condition and protect the environment. In that case, the argumentis obviously not giving the best suggestion.

In sum, the argumentis unconvincing as it stands since the evidence given is insufficient. To strengthenits point, more analysis about the relationship between the pollution and theincreasing number of factories in Clearview is wanted, and the local conditionshould also be considered. Besides, the most significantly, the author should take rulingout the other possible candidates as the premise of thisargument.