Argument7 永不言弃第十三次作业 by stgzhao 7#

stgzhaoUID: 2583165

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 495          TIME: 00:26:56          DATE: 2009-2-18 17:15:13

1. 列举的事实不能说明市政议会没有保护环境。比如工厂数目加倍可能原本很少。空气污染可能并没有到很严重的程度。呼吸疾病可能其他原因造成。
2. 即使是议会确实没有保护环境，没有理由认为FB应该为此负责。我们都知道议会的程序。
3. 即使FB不好。没有理由说明AG会做的更好。
4. 即使AG环境保护的好，未必其他事情他做的好。



The argument provides a proposal that in the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote Ann Green instead of Frank Braun for the reason that Ann Green could certainly solve the environmental problems in Clearview. The argument draws such a conclusion based on the belief that Frank Braun with his city council colleagues should be responsible for the environment problems in Clearview. I find this argument logically flaws in several aspects.

To begin with, the argument fails to provide strong evidence to prove there is environment problems in Clearview. The fact that factories in Clearview has doubled does not indicate that the environment will be polluted. Lack of data of the initial number of factories in Clearview it is entirely possible that Clearview has little factories earlier and hence double the number makes no different. Though air pollution levels have increased, no evidence shows that it has gone to a degree that cannot be tolerated. Therefore the situation probably has not been too bad for the citizens in Clearview.

Even if the environment problem does exist, the argument fails to connect the problems with the city council. Perhaps the city council has promulgated acts to regulate pollution emission while those venal merchants do not obey in order to make more profit. Even if the city council has to be responsible for the environment problems it is possible that Frank Braun is someone in the city council who is against the decision to have more factories - though one man's force is insignificant, after all we all know how the council works.

However, if it is the case that the argument claims that Frank Braun cares little about the environment, I cannot agree with the point that Ann Green will do better based on the status of a member of the Good Earth Coalition. Politician hardly tells the truth. It is possible that Ann Green joins this organization just for the mayoral election - to make a better public image. Therefore there is no reason for the electorates to choose Ann Green just because she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition.

Finally, perhaps Ann Green does have the capability of solving environment problems. The argument fails to provide evidence that she is good at other fields. Perhaps the main agenda of Clearview is to develop its economy. In this case to build more factories is what really should be done. Or perhaps Ann Green is good at solving environment problems but knows little about urban planning, which makes her unqualified for a mayor.

In sum, the argument fails to provide strong, persuasive reason for its conclusion that in the next mayoral election residents of Clearivew should vote for Ann Green instead of Frank Braun. To better evaluate this argument I need to know how serious the environment problems in Clearview are. I will also need to get a better knowledge of Ann Green's ability at various aspect to judge whether to vote for her.