Argument7 互拍 狠拍！！

chenchenfooUID: 2156822

Argument7.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."

字数：610     时间：00：52：36
The arguer recommends that residents of Clearview should vote for a member of Good Earth--Ann Green, rather than for Frank Braun, who is a member of the town council, for the reason that the current members are not protecting our environment. However this argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

A threshold problem with the arguments involves that the increase in the number of factories causes the environmental problem of Clearview, yet the arguer gives no evidence to support his assumption. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the new factories which were established during the past year have do no harm to Clearview’s environment, the air pollution of the town may be caused by other reasons, perhaps there is more vehicles on the street, ejecting a lot of smoke. Even if the new factories do harm the environment, the arguer unfairly assume that the increase in the number of factories was due to the city council’s decision, however, the arguer overlooks several other reasons for the increase of factories, perhaps the other phenomenon has made the increase, the council actually opposed the increase but lacked adequate authority to prevent it, if this is the case, we should certainly vote for Braun to give him more power to solve the town’s environmental problem. In short,. Without ruling out all other possible causes of the air pollution, the arguer cannot convince me that if we don’t vote for Braun, the environmental problem will be solved.

The arguer also unfairly assume that because of the air pollution, the number of patients with respiratory illnesses increased. The mere fact that the number of reporting increased number of patient is insufficient evidence to conclude there is more people than before suffering form respiratory illnesses. Perhaps the actual incidence of such health problem has not increased, and the reported increase is due to increasing awareness among the residents of respiratory illnesses, it is possible that early than last yearn though they suffered from respiratory illnesses, they didn’t go to local hospital for curing. Last year, they began to go to local hospital, as a result, the local hospital has treated more patients with respiratory illnesses. Even if the incidence of respiratory illnesses has in fact increased, the increase might be due to more effective cigarette marketing, or due to an influx of people with pre-existing such illness. Since the arguer has not adequately responded to this concern, his claim is untenable.

Finally, even if the Braun was responsible for the increase of the number of new factories, and the factories cause the air pollution of the town, the arguer provides no clear evidence that Ann Green would solve the problem, let alone more effective than Braun. The fact that she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition cannot suffice to prove her ability to solve the environmental problems. Without more information about the Coalition and Ann’s involvement in it, the author could not persuade me to believe that Ann is able to solve the environmental problem of the town. Even if Ann is really can solve the problem, the arguer provides no evidence to tell us that Ann is the best of all the candidates. Lacking such evident, it is entirely possible that there is another candidate who is more effective than Ann, if this is the case, we should vote for him, rather than Ann, to help us improve Clearview’s aie condition.

To sum up, the recommendation is logically flawed and unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide more evidence to support his claim. Since the arguer fails to do so, the recommendation is not persuasive.