0910AW 同主题写作第十三期 ARGUMENT7=August Rush=第六次作业 by Mason.PD

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

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。

没写完。。。

我觉得第三个破题点没地方写了。。。

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

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: 456
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009/7/30 18:05:29

Basing on the facts about the doubled numbers of factories, increased air pollution level and more patients with respiratory illness, and assuming that the Frank Braun(FB) is responsible to the pollution while Ann Green(AG) can solve the environmental problem who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, the author concludes that in the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for AG rather than for FB. However, there are still some intermediate steps that one should take into consideration before jumping into the hasty conclusion.

To begin with, the author oversimplifies the casual relationship between the environmental pollution and the three facts. The argument unfairly assumes that last year's increase in the number of factories was due to the city council's decisions, and that this increase poses environmental problems for Clearview. Maybe this fact is only attributed to the financial development. Meanwhile, it is also hasty to conclude that the last year's increase in the number of patients reporting respiratory problems is ascribed to the worsening environmental problems in Clearview. It is possible that the weakened health for the civilians in Clearview lacks exercising leads to the them sensitive to the atmosphere change. Without this information given to us, it is presumptuous for the author to draw a conclusion.

Besides, the author commits a mistake about AG is definitely the one who can solve the pollution. The mere fact that Green is a member of the God Earth Coalition hardly suffices to prove his/her willingness and ability to help solve Clearview's environmental problems. It is possible that he/she is mere a voter to support others' measures about saving Clearview's environment, and he/she is short of the skills to dealing with the governments work. Lacking of such details about AG, the author fails to convince us about she can solve environmental problems in Clearview.

Last bu not the least, the author still neglect some other alternatives even if AG can solve problems. First, no evidence has been shown to state FB is responsible to the government action to the environmental pollution. There is no casual relationship that he is a member of the present council so he does a negative effect on environment. Second, the author provides no firm evidence that electing AG is necessary to solve those problems, or that electing Green would suffice. Without these evaluations to show AG is actually better to solve environmental problems in Clearview than FB, the argument can not convince us.

To sum up, judging from the analysis above, the author fails to convince us. To bolster his conclusion, the author should show more details concerning about the relationship between the facts and the environmental pollution, and take AG's and FB's ability to solve the problems into a

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

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: 456
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009/7/30 18:05:29
Basing on the facts about the doubled numbers of factories, increased air pollution level and more patients with respiratory illness, and assuming that the Frank Braun(FB) is responsible to(for) the pollution while Ann Green(AG) can solve the environmental problem who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, the author concludes that in the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for AG rather than for(删for) FB. However, there are still some intermediate steps that one should take into consideration before jumping into the hasty conclusion.
第一，
第一句话太长了，严重的头重脚轻。个人不是很赞同basing on这种说法，这个词一般都用被动，based on.
第二，
你这样开头时间很可能来不及，所以在时间不够的情况下，考虑把蓝色部分精简，不必要把具体内容给出，只说是unwarranted assumptions就可以，为下面的论证争取时间。

To begin with, the author oversimplifies the casual relationship between the environmental pollution and the three facts. The argument unfairly assumes that last year's increase in the number of factories was due to the city council's decisions, and that this increase poses environmental problems for Clearview. Maybe this fact is only attributed to the financial development. Meanwhile, it is also hasty to conclude that the last year's increase in the number of patients reporting respiratory problems is ascribed to the worsening environmental problems in Clearview. It is possible that the weakened health for the civilians in Clearview lacks exercising leads to the them sensitive to the atmosphere change. (这句话感觉把两句话揉起来了，语法不对。而且文章是说呼吸道疾病，跟weak health不太一样。可以这样改：It is possible that the respiratory illnesses of the citizens in Clearview are due to their lack in exercise, which cause them to be sensitive to the atmosphere change,其实我觉得使他们对空气敏感这点不太好，这样就是承认了确实是空气不好影响到他们的身体了). Without this information given to us, it is presumptuous for the author to draw a conclusion.
Besides(个人不是很赞同用besides作为TS的标志词，尝试其他的更好的短语，如in addition等), the author commits a mistake about(that) AG is definitely the one who can solve the pollution. （你对从句把握的不太好，而从句是写长句的基础，注意语法，不要一个句子里没有从句却出现两个谓语动词）The mere fact that Green is a member of the God Earth Coalition hardly suffices to prove his/her willingness and ability to help solve Clearview's environmental problems. It is possible that he/she is mere（merely） a voter to support others' measures about saving Clearview's environment, and he/she is short of the skills to dealing with the governments work. Lacking of such details about AG, the author fails to convince us about (that) she can solve environmental problems in Clearview. (这句话又是从句没把握好，这个语法点要好好去补一下了！)

Last but not the least, the author still neglect some other alternatives even if AG can solve environmental problems. First, no evidence has been shown to state FB is responsible to the government action to the environmental pollution.(这一点可以作让步，即使government is responsible for the environmental problems，FB也不一定有责任) There is no casual relationship（这个后面最好接between … and…不要这样用） that he is a member of the present council so he does a negative effect on environment. Second, the author provides no firm evidence that electing AG is necessary to solve those problems, or that electing Green would suffice. Without these evaluations to show AG is actually better to solve environmental problems in Clearview than FB, the argument can not convince us.
这段的TS不是很清晰，里面的两个观点完全不想关，最好分成两段来写。
To sum up, judging from the analysis above, the author fails to convince us. To bolster his conclusion, the author should show more details concerning about the relationship between the facts and the environmental pollution, and take AG's and FB's ability to solve the problems into a

感觉文章没有把整个逻辑串成一个逻辑链，各个段落之间比较孤立。
说一下我的论证思路吧：
1.
Clearview might not suffer from any environmental problem
2.
Even granted that there indeed exist environmental problems, they are not necessarily caused by the town council
3.
Even granted that the town council is responsible for the environmental problems, it is unfair to conclude that FB is responsible for the problems.
4.
In addition, the mere fact that AG is a member of Good Earth Coalition does not indicate that she has the ability to solve the environmental problems in Clearview
我觉得以上四个是最主要的逻辑错误，时间允许的话最好都写上去，或者把第2，3两点合并起来写。

真是非常不好意思，对不起斑斑和楼主啊，拖到今天才来改，当时自己也乱七八糟的看到限时能写456字的文章觉得这水平我是改不出来什么的了，呵呵，惭愧惭愧，我猜楼主已经考好了吧？这点意见如果对你还有点用那就最好，如果没用了就当是给后来人造福吧，真是非常抱歉呵，迟到的作业还是要补上~ ^_^

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

额。。。为什么颜色出不来。。。