Argument7=So What=小组第1次作业 by mqi07

mqi07UID: 2521740

Argument7=So What=小组第1次作业 by mqi07

mqi07UID: 2521740

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. factory 多了不能说明市委不保护环境   
         没有证据表明工厂的增多世市委的决定。有很多因素可以造成，如上级政府部门的指令使得市委没有权利过问
         没有指出多了的工厂一定是有污染的 有可能是垃圾处理厂  净化水厂 太应能发电 厂等利于环保的，在这种情况下,不论是不是市委的决策，都证明不了其不环保。

2 .呼吸道病与环境污染加重无因果联系
      他因：气候的变迁，或全国范围内大面积的流行使之也避免不了，或者是多出的这25%都是外地的人口或他们原来就患有呼吸病。
另外，文中说 local hospital，没有说服力，因为仅仅一家医院的数据室不能够反映整体的情况的。总之，仅仅只凭借医院报告说的就认为是。。。是完全不合理的。

3 .even if 市委不环保，也不能说明选举A一定比B好。
        首先，没有证据表明市委其成员B就一定不关心环境问题，很有可能B是环保主义者，但由于市委的决策是根据大多数来定的，所以他没有办法来改变市委的决定。
         其次，缺乏证据表明作为GEC成员的A就一定关心此地的环境，并且一定会采取措施来改善环境。文中并没有说明什么样的人才能成为GEC的成员，有可能GEC的成员是推荐制的，而不一定非得是环保者才有资格; 也没有说明其成员一定具有什么责任，例如，作为成员并没有做环保工作的义务；第三点，作者完全没有说明A本身是一个什么样的人，有可能他不是环保主义者，或者不会采取任何利于环境改善的措施。因此，不能仅凭成员这一身份就认为选择A是一定对的。

mqi07UID: 2521740

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: 435          TIME: 01:40:00          DATE: 2009-5-24 16:43:58

In this arguement, the arguer concludes that Clearview residents should vote for   Ann Green,the Good Earth Coalition member, instead of Frand Braun , a member of Clearview council,  in the mayoral election. He or she justify the conclusion by citing the facts: (1)the number of factories in the city is increasing; (2)air pollution are more serious and the respiratory illnesses has been increased by 25% according to the local hospital's report. A careful examination of the evidence, however, reveals that they lend little credible support to this claim. In fact, the arguement contains several facets that are questionable, as discussed below.

To begin with, the mere fact that the increasing number of factories is insufficient evidence to conclude that the town council do not protect the environment. It is entirely possible that it is the higher level government that make the factories' number increase instead of the town council, which does not have the authority to deciside it. In addition, there is no credible information to confirm that  the increasing factories is definitely pollutive. Perhaps they are environmental, such as waste dispal plant, water purifying plant, solar power plant. Consequently, lacking sufficient evidence, it is impossible to establish the conclusion.

Moreover, a direct correlation between high-level air pollution and more respiratory illness does not necessarily prove that the former causes the latter. Contingencies such as climate changes can lead to the respriatory illness. It might also be the case that this illness is  nationalwide prevalent pandemic which the city cannot avoide to suffer from. In addition, the local hospital report is not representative of the general condition. The author's falsure to investigate all the other conditions renders the conclusion based on its highly  suspect.

Finally, envn if the town does not protect the environment, voting for Ann instead of Braun is still unjustifiable. There is no evidence to show that as a member of GEC, Ann is necessarily an environmentalist and will definitely  take proper measures to improve the environment. Similarly, the author fail to prove B is not an environmentalist and would not protect the environment.

As it stands, the arguer cannot warrant this claim on the basis of the scant evidence mentioned in the arguement. To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer must present more facts that can prove the phenomena— more factories and more respiratory illness are the result of the mayoral council. Moreover I would suspend my judgement about the recommendation untill the arguer can provide the concrete evidence that Ann is definitely the better one than Braun to the citizens. Otherwise, the arguer is simply begging the questions throughout the arguement.

miki7catUID: 2533330

In this [argument], the arguer concludes that Clearview residents should vote for Ann Green, the Good Earth Coalition member, instead of Frand Braun, a member of Clearview council, in the mayoral election. He or she justify the conclusion by citing the facts: (1) the number of factories in the city is increasing; (2) air pollution are more serious and the respiratory illnesses has been increased by 25% according to the local hospital's report. A careful examination of the evidence, however, reveals that they lend little credible support to this claim. In fact, the [argument] contains several facets that are questionable, as discussed below.（逻辑跳跃了。例子支持的是政府不关心环保这件事，而不是直接支持要投票给AG这个结论的）

To begin with, the mere fact that the increasing number of factories is insufficient evidence to conclude that the town council do not protect the environment. It is entirely possible that it is [the higher level government]（没见过这种表达法，不敢说是否地道。上级政府: the government at the next higher level 或 superior government） that make the factories' number increase instead of the town council, which does not have the authority to [decide] it. In addition, there is no credible information to confirm that the increasing factories [is] <are> definitely pollutive. Perhaps they are environmental, such as waste [dispal] plant, water purifying plant, solar power plant. Consequently, lacking sufficient evidence, it is impossible to establish the conclusion.

Moreover, a direct correlation between high-level air pollution and more respiratory illness does not necessarily prove that the former causes the latter. Contingencies such as climate changes can lead to the [respiratory] illness. It might also be the case that this illness is  [nationalwide] <nationwide> [prevalent pandemic]（搭配不当？） which the city cannot avoid to suffer from. In addition, the local hospital report is not representative of the general condition. The author's [falsure] <failure?> to investigate all the other conditions renders the conclusion based on its highly suspect.

Finally, [even] if the town does not protect the environment, voting for [Ann instead of Braun]（是否应该统一用姓或名？） is still unjustifiable. There is no evidence to show that as a member of GEC, Ann is necessarily an environmentalist and will definitely take proper measures to improve the environment. Similarly, the author fail to prove [B]（可以这么简写吗？= =|||） is not an environmentalist and would not protect the environment.

As it stands, the arguer cannot warrant this claim on the basis of the scant evidence mentioned in the [argument]. To make it more logically acceptable, [the arguer must present more facts that can prove the phenomena— more factories and more respiratory illness are the result of the mayoral council.]（文章结尾可以提出改进的建议，但是并不是怎样去证明例子的真实性，而是用例子去支持the arguer自己的观点。）Moreover I would suspend my judgement about the recommendation untill the arguer can provide the concrete evidence that Ann is definitely the better one than Braun to the citizens. Otherwise, the arguer is simply begging the questions throughout the [argument].

linyan821230UID: 2638813

In this arguement, the arguer concludes that Clearview residents should vote for   Ann Green,the Good Earth Coalition member, instead of Frand Braun , a member of Clearview council,  in the next mayoral election. He or she justify (justifies) the conclusion by citing the facts: (1)the number of factories in the city is increasing; (2)air pollution are (is) more serious and the number of people with respiratory illnesses has been increased by 25% according to the local hospital's report. A careful examination of the evidence, however, reveals that they (who?) lend little credible support to this claim. In fact, the arguement
(argument) contains several facets that are questionable, as discussed below.

To begin with, the mere fact that the increasing number of factories is insufficient evidence(删去) to conclude that the town council do not protect the environment. It is entirely possible that it is the higher level government (上级政府是这么说吗？) that make (made) the factories' number increase instead of the town council, which does not have the authority to deciside (decide) it. In addition, there is no credible information to confirm that  the increasing factories is
definitely pollutive (definitely polluted the air) . Perhaps they are environmental (你想表达环境友好吗？用environmentally friendly吧), such as waste dispal plant, water purifying plant, solar power plant. Consequently, lacking sufficient evidence, it is impossible to establish the conclusion (建议改为：It is impossible to establish the conclusion for the lack of sufficient evidence.)

Moreover, a direct correlation between high-level air pollution and more respiratory illness does not necessarily prove that the former causes the latter (这句话有点怪). Contingencies such as climate changes can lead to the respriatory (拼写 respiratory) illness. It might also be the case that this illness is  nationalwide (national wide) prevalent pandemic which the city cannot avoide (avoid) to suffer from. In addition, the local hospital report is not representative of the general condition. The author's falsure (failure) to investigate all the other conditions renders the conclusion based on its highly suspect.

Finally, envn (even) if the town does not protect the environment, voting for Ann instead of Braun is still unjustifiable. There is no evidence to show that as a member of GEC, Ann is necessarily an environmentalist and will definitely take proper measures to improve the environment. Similarly, the author fail to prove B (Frank) is not an environmentalist and would not protect the environment.

As it stands, the arguer cannot warrant this claim on the basis of the scant evidence mentioned in the argument (argument). To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer must present more facts that can prove the phenomena— more factories and more respiratory illness are the result of the mayoral council. Moreover I would suspend my judgement (judgment) about the recommendation until (until) the arguer can provide the concrete evidence that Ann is definitely the better one than Braun (Frank) to the citizens. Otherwise, the arguer is simply begging the questions throughout the argument (argument).

mqi07UID: 2521740

小改后的
In this arguement, the arguer concludes that Clearview residents should vote for   Ann Green,the Good Earth Coalition member, instead of Frand Braun , a member of Clearview council,  in the next mayoral election. To support the conclusion, the author claims that   the current members are not protecting  environment.
Also, he draw the information about: (1)the number of factories in the city is increasing; (2)air pollution is more serious and the number of people with respiratory illnesses has been increased by 25% according to the local hospital's report. A careful examination of the evidence, however, reveals that it lend little credible support to this claim. In fact, the argument contains several facets that are questionable, as discussed below.

To begin with, the mere fact that the increasing number of factories is insufficient to conclude that the town council do not protect the environment. It is entirely possible that it is the superior government that made the factories' number increase instead of the town council, which does not have the authority to decide it. In addition, there is no credible information to confirm that  the increasing factories is
definitely pollutive . Perhaps they are environmentally friendly, such as waste dispal plant, water purifying plant, solar power plant. Consequently, lacking sufficient evidence, it is impossible to establish the conclusion.

Moreover, a direct correlation between high-level air pollution and more respiratory illness does not necessarily prove that the former causes the latter . Contingencies such as climate changes can lead to the respiratory illness. It might also be the case that this illness is  national wide prevalent pandemic which the city cannot avoid to suffer from. In addition, the local hospital report is not representative of the general condition. The author's failure to investigate all the other conditions renders the conclusion based on its highly suspect.

Finally,even if the town does not protect the environment, voting for Ann instead of Braun is still unjustifiable. There is no evidence to show that as a member of GEC, Ann is necessarily an environmentalist and will definitely take proper measures to improve the environment. Similarly, the author fail to prove Frank is not an environmentalist and would not protect the environment.

As it stands, the arguer cannot warrant this claim on the basis of the scant evidence mentioned in the argument .To make it more logically acceptable, the arguer must present more facts that can prove the phenomena— more factories and more respiratory illness are the result of the mayoral council. Moreover I would suspend my judgement about the recommendation until the arguer can provide the concrete evidence that Ann is definitely the better one than Frank to the citizens. Otherwise, the arguer is simply begging the questions throughout the argument .