TS:蓝色表示原文拼写错误，已经纠正的。
红色表示个人建议。括号里是不合适的，后面是红色修改。
粉色表示用得好的词。
In this argument, the author （concludes） points out that 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 ）against Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council mainly on the basis of the concern of environmental problems. （To support this conclusion, the aguer points out） As he puts it, there have been （the increase） increasing factories, air pollution levels and more local patients with respiratory illnesses （locally）in the past years （In addition, the author ）so he asserts that the members of the council were and will not be protecting the environment well and（assumes）that Ann Green, if he is elected as the city's mayor, will solve the problems. This argument is flawed in three major aspects.
Firstly, the argument assumes that the council's decisions lead to the more increasing number of factories, more severe air pollution and more （respiratory） patients with respiratory illnesses. Yet the author fails to provide evidence to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that the new factories use （their ）new technologies to limit the pollution under the city's law or that the air （pollutions）pollution （are）
is caused by other factors: for example, because of the （flows）wind flow (of wind), the pollution may be from other nearby cities. Besides, there is also no evidence to claim that the increase in local patients by 25%（treated by local doctors, are contributed to）is surely caused by the air pollution, （Maybe they were infected）possibly by some virus. （or that most of them take more care about their health so that they see doctors even though they are not sick. ）So before the author offers adequate evidence to account for the increase, I cannot accept （the conclusion ）that the council, （besides Frank Braun-only as a member of the council, should take responsibility ）is to blame for the environmental problems.
Secondly,
（The argument suffers from "either-or" reasoning. ）Even though （based on the fact that ）the council ignored the environmental protecting, should residents of the city vote for Ann? Why not choose any other candidates（member of the Good Earth Coalition or persons） in other groups （which also take participate in the election）?没展开。
Finally, there is nowhere more ridiculous than that a mayor seems to be selected as an environmentalist, not a man or a woman who should have more capability of developing the local economic, revitalizing education and so on. If the author wants to convince me to vote for Ann Green, besides solving the problems of the local environment, more data about （him ）his other abilities should be offered （even though he can）.
In conclusion,（ when faced with the argument, it is poorly supported and is shortsighted ）more information should be provided about Ann Green whether she is more competent than anybody else. After that we （could）
will make a justified choice.
评论：文章有点生硬，句与句衔接总出现conclusion argument evidence等词，其实后面接的就是要表达的意思，不必重复。我个人认为简约风格比较好，不拖泥带水。
思路很清晰，而且视角有的地方很特别，就像两选一还有第三人选这个思路。
GO
发表于 2009-5-23 00:00:57
0
转发
