Argument7=So What=小组第1次作业 by 灿烂千阳灿烂

灿烂千阳灿烂UID: 2538650

限时30min 写的，感觉很口语化。。。虽然之前写了一遍提纲，但到真正写的时候就还是词穷了。。。

灿烂千阳灿烂UID: 2538650

7.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."

在下一次市长选举中，Clearview的市应投Good Earth Coalition成员Ann Green的票，而不是Clearview市委成员Frank Braun，因为当前的市委成员没有保护我们的环境。举例来说，去年Clearview的工厂数量翻了一番，空气污染水平增加了，而且当地医院因呼吸道疾病就诊的数量增加了25％。如果我们选举Ann Green，Clearview的环境问题肯定将被解决。

提纲：
1.        镇议会的成员不支持不代表FB不支持，说不定大家觉得FB能影响那些member，使得环境保护措施更有利实施。
2.        过去那些工厂的翻倍可能由于C镇发展的需要，经济建设为主；医院接待了更多呼吸道的病人是否因为工厂造成空气质量下降的原因？还是有大家都未发现的传染疾病？需要深入调查，不能妄下结论。
3.        AG是那个组织的成员也不一定上任后真能解决问题。选市长不是只看是否保护环境还有很多别的方面的能力啊。。。当地的residents应该选一个真正能胜任的。

灿烂千阳灿烂UID: 2538650

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: 378          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009-5-24 下午 07:22:36

The argument presented above seems relatively reasonable. While the author fails to support his opinion with substantial evidences.

First, that the current members of the Clearview town council are not protecting the envionment does not mean that Frank Braun(FB)will not protect our environment either. Maybe it is because FB is elected to be the mayoral that she could easily persuade her colleagues to protect enviornment. Ann Green(AG) is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, but we do not know whether she will support the enviornmental policy or not. Because the author does not show any convincing data to prove this.

Secondly, we could not find substantial evidence to support the author's conclusion that the members of the Clearview town council are not protecting our enviornment. The quantity of factories doubled might result from the need of the local economy. It is required to build large numbers of new factories to stimulate the increases of the local economy. Perhaps the members of the Clearview town council have tried their best to limit the number, or the number of factories in Clearview would be tripled. What's more, the increase of the number of factories does not mean they will pollute enviornment. There is no cogent connection between the increase of the number and the air pollution.
So does the increase of the patients in the local hopital. Respiratory illness caused by many sorts of reasons. The author should make clear whether it resultes from air pollution. Maybe these incrasing number are labors worked in a city where certain kind of respiratory disease is popular. When they came back, they brought the illness here.

Finally, even if all other situation is just like what the author states in the argument, there is no guarantee that Ann Green will solve teh enviornmental problems in Clearview. What's more, the creteria for electing mayoral is not only whether he/she will protect envionment. residents of Clearview should consider much more about the candidates. Maybe what Ann Green is  good at is only protecting enviornment but other abilities are quite poor.

To sum up, lack of cogent evidence and logical connection, the argument could not persuade us to vote for AG but not FB. Furthermore, residents should think deeply to select out an all-round mayoral.

ZhouPYFUID: 2633778

Red refers to the grammar mistake
Blue refers to the spelling mistake

The argument presented above seems relatively reasonable. While the author fails to support his opinion with substantial evidences.

First, that the current members of the Clearview town council are not protecting the envionment does not mean that Frank Braun(FB)will not protect our environment either. Maybe it is because FB is elected to be the mayoral that she （Frank Braun是个男人吧。。。）could easily persuade her colleagues to protect enviornment. Ann Green(AG) is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, but we do not know whether she will support the enviornmental policy or not. Because the author does not show any convincing data to prove this.

Secondly, we could not find substantial evidence to support the author's conclusion that the members of the Clearview town council are not protecting our enviornment. The quantity of factories doubled might result from the need of the local economy. It is required to build large numbers of new factories to stimulate the increases of the local economy. Perhaps the members of the Clearview town council have tried their best to limit the number, or the number of factories in Clearview would be tripled. What's more, the increase of the number of factories does not mean they will pollute enviornment. There is no cogent connection between the increase of the number and the air pollution.
So does the increase of the patients in the local hopital. Respiratory illness caused by many sorts of reasons（是不是中间加个can be caused 比较好）. The author should make clear whether it resultes from air pollution (or not). Maybe these incrasing number are labors worked in a city where certain kind of respiratory disease(a certain kind of 或者
certain kinds of) is popular. When they came back, they brought the illness here.

Finally, even if all other situation is (all the other situations are) just like what the author states in the argument, there is no guarantee that Ann Green will solve teh enviornmental problems in Clearview. What's more, the creteria for electing mayoral (mayor, mayoral是形容词) is not only whether he/she will protect envionment. residents of Clearview should consider much more about the candidates. Maybe what Ann Green is
good at is only protecting enviornment but other abilities are quite poor.（感觉不是很地道，用maybe Ann is good at nothing other than protecting the environment.）

To sum up, lack of cogent evidence and logical connection, the argument could not persuade us to vote for AG but not FB. Furthermore, residents should think deeply to select out an all-round mayoral.

原提纲：
1.        镇议会的成员不支持不代表FB不支持，说不定大家觉得FB能影响那些member，使得环境保护措施更有利实施。
2.        过去那些工厂的翻倍可能由于C镇发展的需要，经济建设为主；医院接待了更多呼吸道的病人是否因为工厂造成空气质量下降的原因？还是有大家都未发现的传染疾病？需要深入调查，不能妄下结论。
3.        AG是那个组织的成员也不一定上任后真能解决问题。选市长不是只看是否保护环境还有很多别的方面的能力啊。。。当地的residents应该选一个真正能胜任的。

感觉是不是用递进的关系更好些，第一段和第二段可以换个顺序，先说不一定当地政府破坏了环境，接下来退一步说，就算他们破坏环境，也不能保证都是FB的主意，第三段讲就算FB和政府都是主张破坏环境的，你也不能保证ANN能干好新市长这个活。

灿烂千阳灿烂UID: 2538650

4# ZhouPYF
为什么第一二段顺序要换啊？我就是按给的Passage里面的错误出现的顺序写的啊。。。感觉换了也。。。逻辑关系也没那么强。。。再考虑一下下。。。

fengrui129UID: 2639927

我觉得你的开头弱了些    Merely based on dubious  evidence ,作者草率导出结论··· 再把错误点提及下，再说自己观点 文章suffers several logic fallacies

25％------这是典型攻击点  调查类错误 the author fails to give the specific number of ``  也许原来基数很小，也许就几个人，那么增长了25％就不足为奇，还有作者没有points out how the survey was conducted. If who conducted survey by themselves, and the question is ```

2.        过去那些工厂的翻倍可能由于C镇发展的需要，经济建设为主；医院接待了更多呼吸道的病人是否因为工厂造成空气质量下降的原因？还是有大家都未发现的传染疾病？需要深入调查，不能妄下结论。

The author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that````It is highly possible other factors may have contribute to ```For instance,```  建议楼主可以寻找一套合适自己的模板

灿烂千阳灿烂UID: 2538650

6# fengrui129
多谢~！我再斟酌！

灿烂千阳灿烂UID: 2538650

ARGU7 AGAIN:
The argument presented above seems relatively reasonable. While the author fails to support his opinion with cogent logical reasoning—the false analogy, the unrelated concepts, the unreliable quantive and lack of controlled comparison.

First, in the argument the author recommends that Frank Braun(FB) to carry out same actions on the current members of the Clearview town council who are considered not protecting the envionment. But the analogy between them might be unsubstantiated. Furthermore, maybe it is because FB is elected to be the mayor that he could easily persuade her colleagues to protect enviornment. Ann Green(AG) is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, but we do not know whether she will support the enviornmental policy or not. The analogy between the two is not correct either. The author does not show any convincing data to prove these.

Secondly, in illustrating the assumption that the current members of the Clearview town council are not protecting our environment, the author cites several unrelated phenomena to prove this. The quantity of factories doubled might result from the need of the local economy. It is required to build large numbers of new factories to stimulate the increases of the local economy. Perhaps the members of the Clearview town council have tried their best to limit the number, or the number of factories in Clearview would be tripled. What's more, the increase of the number of factories does not mean they will pollute enviornment. There is no cogent connection between the increase of the number and the air pollution.


So does the increase of the patients in the local hopital. More patients with respiratory illnesses is not a good indication of increasing air pollution level. Many sorts of reasons could have contributed to respiratory illness. The author should make clear whether it resultes from air pollution. It is highly possible that these incrasing number are labors worked in a city where certain kinds of respiratory disease is popular. When they came back, they brought the illness here. Another major problem is about the unreliable number. The author only informs us that 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses has been treated in the local hospital, but what we care more about is the reliability of the survey, the concrete base amount of the general group etc. Consequently, some other substantial information are needed for us to assess the soundness of the argument, and the conclusion would vary greatly when other conditions varied.

Finally, even if all the other situation is just like what the author states in the argument, there is no guarantee that Ann Green will solve the enviornmental problems in Clearview. What's more, the criterion for electing mayor is not only whether he/she will protect envionment. Residents of Clearview should consider much more about the candidates. Maybe what Ann Green is  good at nothing other than protecting enviornment. Or is there any other qualified candidate competent for the position?

To sum up, lack of cogent evidence and logical connection, the argument could not persuade us to vote for AG but not FB. Furthermore, residents should think deeply to select out an all-round qualified mayor.

sha-shineUID: 2610662

In this argument, the author believes that the recent（recently） global warming trends contribute to the decline of the quantity of the arctic deer. He also claims that this decline attributes to deer being unable to follow their age-old migration patterns across the frozen sea. To bolster his assertion, he quotes the reports from the local hunters that the quantity of the arctic deer is reducing. Also, he connects the recent global warming trends with the failure that the arctic deers search for food. These evidences appear to be reasonable, while they can hardly enable the certain conclusion.
（我认为，首段可按这个顺序和大致内容写：“作者根据当地猎人的报告北极鹿的数量正在下降，又根据另一个报告推出：北极鹿的下降时他们无法按它们原有的迁移习惯穿越结冰海面的结果。可是我并不这么认为…”
因为这些内容刚好是你下文所要驳斥的，而且也是按你驳斥的顺序写。这样容易让判卷人认为你的文章很有条理）


Firstly, the reliability of the reports from the local hunters is open to doubt in that hunters support their families and themselves on hunting these wild animals. Once the quantity of the deer decreases, the government and the related organizations owe the obligation to provide more assistance to those hunters. Moreover, lack of scientific knowledges（不用复数）, the local hunters probably fail to capture the latest trends of the habitation about those arctic deers, thus predicating the decline mistakenly. Consequently, the author should cite a report or survey which is conducted by an accredited and scientific institution to convince us that the quantity of the arctic deer is really reducing.

The second problem is the underlying assumption that the recent global warming trend is responsible for the decline of the arctic deer. The author only points out that the two events occur during the same period. However, we all know that a coincidence of the two phenomena could not sufficiently demonstrate a causal relationship between them. We  concede that recent global warming trends have caused the sea ice to melt so probably they turn to be thinner. But it is entirely likely that they are still thick enough for the arctic deer to move and search for food. Even if the arctic deer find it impossible to inhabit on islands in Canada's arctic region, they could migrate to other regions which affected slightly by the global warming. According to this, the quantity of the arctic deer actually remains constant.

In addition, many other factors could also lead to the result which might include the disappearance of the plants the arctic deer feeds on as a result of the global warming or being lopped by human beings, the occupation of the local habitate （habitat）yielding to the benefits of the local farming, the increasing cynegetics by local hunters and so forth. Without ruling out such factors, we could not be convinced that the recent global warming trend is the actural cause of the decline of the arctic deer.

To sum up, the argument by the author is unconvincing. To strengthen it, the author must provide a report by an accreditted （accredited）and scientific institution to convince us the assertion of the decline of the quantity of the arctic deer. Also, the author must rule out all other possible alternatives for the only reason causing this result.
（正体结构紧密，如果第一段再加强点就更加完美了）
（我有一个问题，如果在一个A中，我想阐述的几方面中，有两方面想驳斥的内容有交叉改怎么取舍。例如，你这里的第二段，如果在这里说“当地居民的话没有可信型，鹿减少了也许是因为鹿迁徙到其他更适合它生活得地方了”这样更加有说服力，可是“也许鹿迁徙到其他适合它生活得地方了”也很有说服力。这样该怎么取舍呢。我写作文经常会遇到这样的问题。先谢谢你了哦）

灿烂千阳灿烂UID: 2538650

9# sha-shine 我认为，首段可按这个顺序和大致内容写：“作者根据当地猎人的报告北极鹿的数量正在下降，又根据另一个报告推出：北极鹿的下降时他们无法按它们原有的迁移习惯穿越结冰海面的结果。可是我并不这么认为…”
因为这些内容刚好是你下文所要驳斥的，而且也是按你驳斥的顺序写。这样容易让判卷人认为你的文章很有条理

很同意！
然后你问的那个。。。我有点confused也~。。。咱么讨论的时候再说吧，说得清楚一点，怎么样？