argument7

zj82119UID: 124289

s7The 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 argument the arguer recommends that in the next mayoral election residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than for Frank Braun.This recommendation is based on the fact that Ann Green is a member of Good Earth Coalition,while Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council ,whose current members are not protecting the environment.The arguer claims that if Ann Green is elected,the environment problem in Clearview will certainly be solved.At first glance,this argument seem very  persuasive and convincing. After a careful examination of it, however, we would reveal how groundless it is.
   The first ,also the obvious flaw in the argument is that it is unfair to blame industries of all these things ,many other factors may also cause the air pollution ,such as carbon dioxide,other pollution gases from cars and smoke ,all of which are enemy of people's health.And at the same time ,it is impossible to resolve air pollution problem by simply electing an environment-protecting mayor and close up those factories as the arguer has mentioned.
   Granted factories having causing the environment has no influence on the argument, one serious problem still exists.We should not garantee that Clearview is not an isolated city,which is invulnerable to pollutions carried by winds and rivers from nearby cities.To solve these problems it need more complex negotiations and laws, which are likely beyond the capability of a pure enviroment protector.What is also worth noticing is respiration illness may be caused by other reasons such as viruses.There even might be possible that the increasing in local hospital's record may be attributed to the increasing care of their health.
    The last but not the least ,since it fail to give an persuasive evidence that Ann Green has the ability to deal with daily things of a mayor.As we know,a mayor has to do a lot of things besides environment issues,such as things of economy,public services and so on.while an enviroment-protector ,on the other hand ,lacks most of these necessary and essential knowledge and capability,which presaging whether he or she will be a good mayor or not,since we even don't know whether he is a moderate
enviroment-protector or an ironhanded one.If unfortunately ,the latter,Clearview might see no progress in economy and cultivation since the mayor may not focus too much on enviroment affairs.
     To sum up,the argument is not well reasoning and  lack credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead to support to what the arguer maintains.To make the argument more convincing ,the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove that Ann is better than Frank Braun through detailed comparision,otherwise we can't hastily come to the conclution that Ann should be elected as our major,and the environment problem will be solved.

imagineUID: 154118

In this argument the arguer recommends that in the next mayoral
election residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather
than for Frank Braun.This recommendation is based on the fact
that Ann Green is a member of (the) Good Earth Coalition,while Frank
Braun is a member of the Clearview town council ,whose current
members are not protecting the environment.The arguer claims
that if Ann Green is elected,the environment problem in Clearview
will certainly be solved.At first glance,this argument seem (seems)very
persuasive and convincing. After a careful examination of it,
however, we would reveal how groundless it is.
The first ,also the obvious (用最高级比较好吧) flaw in the argument
is that it is unfair to blame industries of (for) all these things ,
(应该用个连词要么独立成句)many other factors may also cause the air pollution ,such
as carbon dioxide,other(去掉other觉得通顺些) pollution gases from cars and smoke ,
all of which are enemy of people's health.And at the same time ,
it is impossible to resolve air pollution problem by simply
electing an environment-protecting mayor and close up those
factories as the arguer has mentioned.(感觉上这段论证不是太有力,应该更加花些
工夫说明factory的增加不一定是illnesses增加的原因,我自己写时就
说有许多是环保经济型的工厂,不但生产goods还能做到废弃利用,这样一来就
不破坏环境了相反还促进了保护环境)
Granted factories having causing (caused) the environment has no
influence on the argument(不懂,觉得不通), one serious problem still exists.
We should not garantee that Clearview is not an isolated
city,which is invulnerable to (the) pollutions carried by winds
and rivers from nearby cities.To solve these problems it
need more complex negotiations and laws, which are likely
beyond the capability of a pure enviroment protector.What
is also worth noticing is respiration illness may be caused
by other reasons such as viruses.There even might be possible
that the increasing in local hospital's record may be attributed
to the increasing care of their health.(这句话意思是说因为人们比以前更重视
健康了,所以医院才会有更多的人records吗?)(总体感觉这段太散了,
也没有在开头段很明确的表明本段的观点,前面似乎在说Ann当选未必能解决问题,
但后面又开始说illnesses的造成有很多别的原因,感觉又回到前段要说的问题了)
The last but not the least ,since it (还是用argument吧,否则
给人指代不明的感觉)fail (fails) to give an (a)persuasive
evidence that Ann Green has the ability to deal with daily things
of a mayor.As we know,a mayor has to do a lot of things
besides environment issues,such as things of economy,public
services and so on.while an enviroment-protector ,on the other
hand ,lacks most of these necessary and essential knowledge and
capability(capabilities),which presaging (presages)whether he or she will be a good
mayor or not,since we even don't know whether he is a moderate
enviroment-protector or an ironhanded one.If unfortunately ,
the latter,Clearview might see no progress in economy and
cultivation since the mayor may not focus too much on enviroment affairs.
(再谈一下Frank呀,好象通篇都没有提到)
To sum up,the argument is not well reasoning and lack credibility
because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead to support
to(要用吗?不用介词的吧) what the arguer maintains.To make the argument more convincing ,
the arguer would have to provide more evidence to prove that Ann
is better than Frank Braun through detailed comparision,otherwise
we can't hastily come to the conclution that Ann should be elected
as our major(mayor),and the environment problem will be solved.

imagineUID: 154118

我今天下午也刚写了这题,看到有别人的文章就忍不住想改,
第一次没什么经验,盼望有经验的GTER指点,我自己也四月考作文,希望能在这得到提高与成长

imongUID: 140258

最初由 imagine 发布
[B]我今天下午也刚写了这题,看到有别人的文章就忍不住想改,
第一次没什么经验,盼望有经验的GTER指点,我自己也四月考作文,希望能在这得到提高与成长 [/B]

Frankly, I appreciate your work very much. Thank you. :)