Argument7【09GRE作文冲刺组】rato2月28日作文

ratoUID: 2563435

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."




In this argument, the arguer recommends that we should elect Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, to be the Clearview's next mayoral. To support this conclusion the arguer points out that the deterioration of environment must be the result of the unconcern of the Clearview town council, of which Frank Braun is a member. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate that the Clearview town council does not safeguarded the environment. Perhaps the current members have taken various measures but they didn't work. And perhaps the doubled amount of factories, which are not surely the cause of worse environment, has nothing to do with the town council.

Another defect that impairs the logic of this argument is that the arguer doesn't mention the position and duty of Frank Braun in the town council. It is highly possible that he has made great efforts to enforce a policy of protecting environment, even if the other members neglect or veto.
Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out several other flaws that undermine the argument. The arguer assumes too rapidly that Ann Green will solve the problem of environment after being voted mayor. What's more, the increasingly respiratory illnesses, which may be cause by the increasing cigarette marketing, are not certainly related to worse environment.

In summary, this argument seems to be credible; actually, it is neither dependable nor convincing. To make the argument more compelling, the arguer would have to provide clear evidence that the Clearview town council does not protect the environment, which has relations with Frank Braun. In addition, the ability that Ann Green possesses of resolving the environmental problem must be proved. If the argument includes the given factors mentioned above, it would have been more meticulous and reasonable.

xiaoshan0428UID: 2597623

In this argument, the arguer recommends that we should elect Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, to be the Clearview's next mayoral. To support this conclusion the arguer points out that the deterioration of environment must be the result of the unconcern of the Clearview town council, of which Frank Braun is a member. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

The major problem with this argument is that the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate that the Clearview town council does not safeguarded the environment. Perhaps the current members have taken various measures but they didn't work.And perhaps the doubled amount of factories, which are not surely the cause of worse environment, has nothing to do with the town council.（这句话的语法错了，应该改称 Perhaps the worse environment was attributed to the doubled amount of factories, while it may has nothing to do with the town council.).

Another defect that impairs the logic of this argument is that the arguer doesn't mention the position and duty of Frank Braun in the town council. It is highly possible that he has made great efforts to enforce a policy of protecting environment, even if the other members neglect or veto.
Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out several other flaws that undermine the argument. The arguer assumes too rapidly that Ann Green will solve the problem of environment after being voted mayor. What's more, the increasingly respiratory illnesses, which may be cause(caused) by the increasing cigarette marketing, are not certainly(这个太绝对了吧，改成possibly) related to worse environment.

In summary, this argument seems to be credible; actually, it is neither dependable nor convincing. To make the argument more compelling, the arguer would have to provide clear evidence that the Clearview town council does not protect the environment, which has relations with Frank Braun. In addition, the ability that Ann Green possesses of resolving the environmental problem must be proved. If the argument includes the given factors mentioned above, it would have been more meticulous and reasonable.
总的来说还是不错的  就是在段落里论证的部分还显得有点空洞  再加几个句子或许看起来会好一些

ratoUID: 2563435

啊我經常沒話可說

謝謝你啊~

_xtUID: 2599830

In this argument, the arguer recommends that we should elect Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, to be the Clearview's next mayoral（mayor）. To support this conclusion（recommendation，因为前面用的是recommends） the arguer points out that the deterioration of environment must be the result of the unconcern of the Clearview town council, of which Frank Braun is a member. As it stands, the argument suffers from several critical flaws as follows.

The major
problem（major problem可能暗示这段会很长，但实际上跟全文相比很平衡啊~所以用threshold或者first crucial可能更好一点）with this argument is that the arguer provides no evidence to substantiate that the Clearview town council does not safeguarded（这个动词一般不跟environment连用吧？建议用preserve，protect） the environment. Perhaps the current members have taken various measures but
they didn't work（though they might not work）. And perhaps the doubled amount of factories, which are not surely the cause of worse environment, has nothing to do with the town council.（其实只是个很主要的逻辑漏洞，应该多用一点笔墨来攻击，而不要一笔带过）

Another defect that impairs the logic of this argument is that the arguer doesn't mention the position and duty of Frank Braun in the town council. It is highly possible that he has made great efforts to enforce a policy of protecting environment, even if the other members neglect or veto.（这段论证观点语言都很好！）
Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out several other flaws that undermine the argument. The arguer assumes too rapidly（hastily） that Ann Green will solve the problem of environment after being voted mayor. What's more, the increasingly respiratory illnesses, which may be cause by the increasing cigarette marketing, are not certainly related to worse environment.

In summary, this argument seems to be credible; actually, it is neither dependable nor convincing. To make the argument more compelling, the arguer would have to provide clear evidence that the Clearview town council does not protect the environment, which has relations with Frank Braun. In addition, the ability that Ann Green possesses of resolving the environmental problem must be proved. If the argument includes the given factors mentioned above, it would have been more meticulous and reasonable.

其实你把逻辑漏洞都找到了，语言功底也相当厉害~~~只是还没有找到攻击的方法，所以在论证上稍显薄弱。多看看别人的文章吧，或许有帮助！毕竟第一次写，这样已经很不错了。

ratoUID: 2563435

其實那些漏洞我也是看了資料后才完全明瞭的哈

thx for ur advice~:)