argument7 xiexie:)

yhwzUID: 2628211

Argument 7
The following appeared in a letter to theeditor of the Clearview newspaper.

"In the next mayoral election,residents of Clearview should vote forAnn Green, who is a member of the GoodEarth Coalition, rather than forFrank Braun, a member of the Clearview towncouncil, because the currentmembers are not protecting our environment. Forexample, during the pastyear the number of factories in Clearview has doubled,air pollutionlevels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25percentmore patients with respiratory illnesses. If we elect Ann Green,theenvironmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved."


The conclusion that Ann Green rather thanFrank Braun should be voted asmayor in the next year is not well drawn fromthis argument. Althoughthe arguer points out that the current council members failsto protectthe environment, and that Frank Braun is a member of Clearviewtowncouncil but Ann Green is not. So, if we elect Ann Green ,theenvironmentalproblem will be solved certainly .In addition ,an exampleof increasing numberof people who suffer respiratory illness is takenas an evidence to support thephenomenon that the environment was badlypolluted ,which is the responsibilityof the council .Although it seemsreasonable ,the argument is still fraughtwith vague ,oversimplified andunwarranted assumptions.

The first problem in the argument is thatthe arguer imposes the causalrelationship on election and environmentprotection. The protection ofenvironment is an important aspect in mayor’sduty, but that is not thewhole work for a mayor. And both the two candidates, Annand Frank, donot make any promise about environmental problem too. Even ifthepromise will be made, whether it will be come true, or theenvironment will reallybe improved is still an unknown thing.

Another flaw that weakens this argument isthat the arguer is confusedwith the correlation and causal relation .Theprotection of theenvironment indeed has something to do with the council'sguidence andprojecting, however, it might not completely determined by thecouncil.There are many aspects work on the problem, such as the quality ofthecitizens, the level of the industrial development and so on.Therefore, thearguer cannot leave the whole responsibility to thecouncil, so do to Frank, onemember of the council.

Even if the council should takeconsiderable responsibility on this problem because of its proposals，theobjection against voting Frank to be mayor is still unequal, becauseanyproposal must be supported by most of the council members, and thearguerhas no evidence to prove that Frank is the one of the majority tosupport theunwise proposal, or he plays a decisive role in council.Thus, the arguer’sconclusion that Frank should not be voted is unfair.

The last but not least is that the examplewhich the arguer gives cannotsupport his assertion at all .The statistic of25% has no meaning,because the arguer doesn't give us the base number. Let'smake anassumption. There are only 4 patients who suffer the respirationillnessa year ago, and the number increases by 25% now. How many patientswillbe now? So we cannot find the seriousness from this data. Eventhough, thearguer can provide a large base number, the examplemeaningless. The reason isthat the arguer cannot proof that therespiration illness is caused by the airpollution. If it is resultedfrom virus of flu or other factors rather thanenvironmental pollution,the example cannot support the arguer's conclusion.

To sum up, the conclusion lackscredibility, because the evidences inthe argument cannot lead strong supportto what the arguer maintains .Tostrength the argument, the arguer shouldprovide more evidencesconcerning the two candidates' attitudes about theenvironmentprotection, more details about the Ann's work in the Clearviewtowncouncil in the past year, and the relation between the respirationillness andthe air pollution.