Argument7投票与保护环境，恳请大家来互拍

copia_cloudUID: 2182278

第三篇了，还是写了很久啊，感觉提高不大啊！
欢迎大家来拍，有拍必复。:)
TOPIC£ºARGUMENT 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."
提纲
1、没有证据表明当地环境恶化了
2、即使是环境恶化，可能与Braun无关。
3、投格林的票既不充分也不必要

The arguer concludes that the residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than for Frank Braun. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the number of factories and patients has increased, and that the  town council are not protecting the environment. However, a careful examination would reveal how groundless the arguer is.

To begin with, the arguer indicates that the Clearview's environment has deteriorated. Accordingly, the arguer assumes that the pollution is proportional to the number of factories and patients treated with respiratory illnesses. However, the arguer provides evidence to substantiate the assumption. Perhaps the new factories have advanced equipment which can recycle the waste completely. Or perhaps, the new patients are due to some other phenomenon--there may be a bad weather result in a flu epidemic in Clearview, and more people have went to the hospital. If any scenario mentioned above is true, the arguer's conclusion is unjustifiable.

Furthermore, assuming that the arguer's assumption is reliable, the arguer unfairly asserts that Braun is responsible for the problem. The arguer provides no evidence that the council members are not protecting the environment. It is entirely possible that the council has proposed to solve the pollution, yet lacks authority to carry out. Or perhaps Braun advocate s to protect the environment, while other members in the town council does not. Without ruling out such possibilities, the arguer cannot prove the recommendation.

Last but not least, the fact that Green is a member of the Clearview town council does not indicate that he will devote himself to the environment protection--the arguer does not prove that Good Earth Coalition is a environment-protection organization. More over, the residents can also vote for other candidates who might reduce more pollution to some extent. Even if the voting for Green was necessary, that does not suffice to solve the environmental problems. Other factors, such as government's strategies, or the local population, may also impact the environment. Therefore, the recommendation to vote for Green is not neither necessary nor sufficient.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more evidence that the environment in Clearview has worsened, and Green is responsible for this. Also, the arguer should consider other methods to solve the environmental problems.

[ 本帖最后由 copia_cloud 于 2006-2-9 23:45 编辑 ]

copia_cloudUID: 2182278

自己顶一下吧

copia_cloudUID: 2182278

up 一下
那位来拍拍吧，现在比较迷茫，迫切想知道如何改进

copia_cloudUID: 2182278

再up一下，向所有提意见的人致敬

小室黄瓜UID: 2155213

提纲
1、没有证据表明当地环境恶化了（没有具体的数字表明环境的恶化，但题中不是说空气污染方面了么？）
2、即使是环境恶化，可能与Braun无关。
3、投格林的票既不充分也不必要
我觉得这个提纲有点问题。首先不是没有证据，而是证据不能证明，然后提纲第2点，最后即使Braun 对环境可能作用不大，但是并不能说格林就能比Braun强，说他们两个的对比，比较好吧？我认为还有比较重要的一点，环境既然这么不好了，那么那个good eath的格林怎么没发挥本职工作呢？
The arguer concludes that the residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than for Frank Braun. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the number of factories and patients has increased, (air pollution呢？)and that the  town council are not protecting the environment. However, a careful examination would reveal how groundless the arguer is.
To begin with, the arguer indicates that the Clearview's environment has deteriorated. Accordingly, the arguer assumes that the pollution is proportional to the number of factories and patients treated with respiratory illnesses. However, the arguer provides （no）evidence to substantiate the assumption. Perhaps the new factories have advanced equipment which can recycle the waste completely.(这个说的不充分，本身举的例子很好，再加上and more factory can not equal more pollution. ) Or perhaps, the new patients are due to some other phenomenon--there may be a bad weather result in a flu epidemic in Clearview, and more people have went to the hospital.( But this kind need to go to hospital doesn’t mean that it is due to the air pollution or other kind of pollution 这样子说的话，更充分，还能把文章写长，你的字数好像不多) If any scenario mentioned above is true, the arguer's conclusion is unjustifiable.

Furthermore, assuming that the arguer's assumption is reliable, the arguer unfairly asserts that Braun is responsible for the problem. The arguer provides no evidence that the council members are not protecting the environment. It is entirely possible that the council has proposed to solve the pollution, yet lacks authority to carry out.（不是缺少地位，而是因为做了但是没有把具体的功劳举出来，环境污染不是迅速能治理的好的，而且污染情况的加重也许是由新的问题，而人们一直在努力治理旧问题 。你觉得呢？）Or perhaps Braun advocate s to protect the environment, while other members in the town council does not. Without ruling out such possibilities, the arguer cannot prove the recommendation.

Last but not least, the fact that Green is a member of the Clearview town council does not indicate that he will devote himself to the environment protection--the arguer does not prove that Good Earth Coalition is a environment-protection organization. More over, the residents can also vote for other candidates who might reduce more pollution to some extent. Even if the voting for Green was necessary, that does not suffice to solve the environmental problems. Other factors, such as government's strategies, or the local population, may also impact the environment. Therefore, the recommendation to vote for Green is not neither necessary nor sufficient.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more evidence that the environment in Clearview has worsened, and Green is responsible for this. Also, the arguer should consider other methods to solve the environmental problems.

总的来说，我觉得你的写作方面问题不大，比我的好得多！！主要在分析和论证上。明显感觉分析的不全，而且论证没有力度。花多点时间在分析题目上，不算浪费时间阿，他们限时写得，也不是上来就写出提纲的，他们都把题库看完了，并都有自己的提纲了。我觉得写提纲最重要也最浪费时间了。
Copia 和我一样，咱们都要多写提纲，多分析题目啊！！加油！！
我的水平有限，希望意见对你有所帮助！

[ 本帖最后由 小室黄瓜 于 2006-2-13 10:53 编辑 ]