Argument7 恳请大家拍砖！

staralwaysUID: 193479

题目：
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."
在下一次市长选举中，Clearview的市应投Good Earth Coalition成员Ann Green的票，而不是Clearview市委成员Frank Braun，因为当前的市委成员没有保护我们的环境。举例来说，去年Clearview的工厂数量翻了一番，空气污染水平增加了，而且当地医院因呼吸道疾病就诊的数量增加了25％。如果我们选举Ann Green，Clearview的环境问题肯定将被解决。


正文：
In the argument, the author suggests that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, rather than Frank Braun, in the next mayoral election. To support his suggestion, the author cites several facts and states that Frank Braun belongs to the council whose member are not protecting environment while the situation is worsening, while Ann Green can solve the environmental problems. However, careful scrutiny shows that the argument suffers from many flaws.

Firstly, the author fails to construct reliable causality between the three facts he cites as evidence for the serious environmental problems. The doubled number of factories does not necessarily mean that it contributes to the increased level of air pollution, and the latter is not sufficient for resulting more patients with respiratory illnesses. It is very likely that other factors are the very reason for the heightened level of air pollution. For example, there's a deforestation in the nearby areas. The trees are cut down, which originally can withhold dust and other pollutants in the air. Further more, the mere fact the number of patients with respiratory illnesses has increased in the local hospital may be the result of migration of residents who already have such diseases. Without further information, it is unconvincing for the author to argue that the environment is really deteriorating.

Secondly, even assuming that the author's conclusion that there're serious environmental problems, it is unfair for him to note that it results from that the members of the Clearview town council being not protecting environment and further Frank Braun, a member of this council, is responsible to this matter. It is entirely possible that those members are trying hard to protect the environment, for example, enacting some local laws against omission of greenhouse gases, while many of the local factories, possible the newly built ones, just ignore such regulations and send those gases harmful to the environment out which leads to the serious problems. Before this kind of possibilities is ruled out, it is groundless for the author to claim that the members of the town council, and further Frank Braun is responsible for such problems.

Finally, the author commits a fallacy of "unwarranted assumption" that the environmental problems will be surely solved by electing Ann Green. The mere fact that he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition does not necessarily mean that he has a very good awareness of the environment. Even assuming that he cares a lot of protecting the environment, whether he can promote any practical way to solve the problems and whether these means will take effect is still open to doubt.

In conclusion, the author fails to convince us that his proposal is the right one. To support the argument, the author would have to assure us that the environment in Clearview does in fact worsening and Frank Braun should be responsible for this. To better evaluate the argument, the author should provide further information whether Ann Green can offer methods that actually solve the environmental problems.

鬼谷子UID: 159645

1.开头有点模板化，可以考虑把反对的大概原因和大概的几个点简述一下，让你的观点更突出。

2. B1的latter你指什么？而且，你说有三个问题，我只看到了两个。另外，一个小建议，你先说了有1.2.两个问题，又仔细说了1.2.都有什么错误，麻烦，直接说问题1.，哪里不对，有什么反例，问题2.，哪里不对，有什么反例好一点。

总的来说层次不错，反驳的也比较到位了，还是不错的。建议反例的部分可以多列举几个，看你的文章里面一般都只是列举了一个，多举几个可以让你的反驳更有力，也显得你的分析更透彻全面。加油！

staralwaysUID: 193479

谢谢鬼鬼斑斑！

B1的latter你指什么？而且，你说有三个问题，我只看到了两个。另外，一个小建议，你先说了有1.2.两个问题，又仔细说了1.2.都有什么错误，麻烦，直接说问题1.，哪里不对，有什么反例，问题2.，哪里不对，有什么反例好一点。
我的意思是这样的：题目中列举了三个事实，新开工厂数目加倍->空气污染水平上升->患有呼吸道疾病的病人增多。然后我想说这三着之间没有必然的因果关系，所以实际上反驳的时候就只有两个了。不过这样一来可能自己在表述上也不是十分清楚了。