0910AW 同主题写作第十三期 ARGUMENT7=August Rush=第6次作业 by 尾羽

尾羽UID: 2482591

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."

A7.doc (30.5 KB, 下载次数: 0)

2009-7-30 23:23:27 上传

下载次数: 0

上帝啊。。。我终于挤进一小时了。。。阿门~

尾羽UID: 2482591

WORDS: 485          TIME: 00:46:32          DATE: 2009-7-30 17:13:20

Basing on the fact that Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition (GEC) and Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council whose current members are not protecting our environment, supposing that the environment condition of Clearview is getting worse, the author suggests that residents should vote for Green rather than Braun in the next mayoral election of Clearview. It seems to be a rational recommendation, while a close examination would reveal how groundless it is.

A threshold problem appeared in this argument is that the worse circumstance of environment in Clearview may not be attribute to the increasing number of factories. That is to say, the increasing air pollution levels and patients with respiratory illness may not be due to the new factories. It is entirely possible that new factories was build with fundamentally advanced equipment for cleaning the polluted air before releasing and that the bad consequences in Clearview might be caused by others like too much cars, not enough number of trees and so on. Moreover, the increased 25 percent more patients may not be all local residents. It means they may admire the new famous doctor in Clearview hospital to cure their respiratory illness which is not got because of the air pollution in Clearview. Thus, unless asserting that increased factories are the only reason results in the air pollution, the author cannot claim that town council is not protecting the environment of Clearview.

What further weakens the argument is the fact that even if the Clearview town council is resposible for the air pollution, Braun may not be blamed. The attitude to ignore the environment getting worse may not be the personal opinion of Braun. That is to say, he may constantly do effort to fight against the Clearview town council, and it is also the original reason of his participation of the next mayoral election. Therefore, the author's suggestion may be unfair to Braun.

Ultimately, even assuming that Ann Green, a member of GEC which sounds a environment protecting institution, is more outstanding than Frank Braun, there is no evidence to prove that she would solve the environmental problems in Clearview certainly. The author fails to lend fact about the Green's ever any achievement in environment protecting area. In another words, we even cannot quite sure Green would do effort in this area. Thus, the author's claim may be rejected, before presenting more evidence of the Green's merit to be a mayoral.

As it stands, the conclusion of this argument is not well reasoned. To make it more logically acceptable, the author would have to present more detailed investigations with solid fact about both merit of Ann Green and Frank Braun for the election and appropriate deduction, such as what is the specific reason causes the worse consequence of environment and the more persuasive evidence to prove that Ann Green would solve the pollution problem definitely.

RufusgwUID: 2501942

Basing on the fact that Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition (GEC) and Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council whose current members are not protecting our environment（连用了两个member of ，其实可以考虑一些变化，比如Braun serves in town council）, supposing that the environment condition of Clearview is getting worse, the author suggests that residents should vote for Green rather than Braun in the next mayoral election of Clearview（虽然说经常见人鼓励大家用长句，不过，像这样的连续两个现在分词引导的状语从句倒的确很少见。不过至少从语法上讲这是正确的，而且的确有耳目一新之感。）. It seems to be a rational recommendation, while（嗯，你确定while用在这里合适吗？while貌似是虽然之感，常表让步语气吧，把while放在It seems前面可能更合适） a close examination would reveal how groundless it is.
A threshold problem appeared（你觉得，appear这个词有被动用法一说吗？”被发生“？当然，现在至少在天朝像这样的“被就业”之类用法倒很常见，不过，这个是要写给ETS看的……建议改为appearing） in this argument is that the worse circumstance of environment in Clearview may not be attribute to（attributed） the increasing number of factories. That is to say, the increasing air pollution levels and patients with respiratory illness may not be due to the new factories. It is entirely possible that new factories was(were) build((built） with fundamentally (fundamentally 用在这里不太合适吧？基本发达？还是想说足够发达？）advanced equipment for cleaning the polluted air before releasing and that the bad consequences in Clearview might be caused by others like too much cars, not enough number of trees and so on（个人愚见，你这句话中前半句与上一句衔接较紧，其实可以这样处理，把关于工厂的内容放在一句，其他原因的内容处理为另一句。）. Moreover, the increased 25 percent more patients（有必要有More?) may not be all local residents. It means they may admire the new famous doctor in Clearview hospital to cure their respiratory illness(admire sb to cure??个人觉得最好还是在cure前填个动词，不然整句话你觉得通顺不？） which is not got because of the air pollution in Clearview. Thus, unless asserting that increased factories are the only reason results （嗯，前面是一个are，后面又是一个reason，随后又来一个result，这个单复数不同形的问题确实比较明显……）in the air pollution, the author cannot claim that town council is not protecting the environment of Clearview.
说句实话，我觉得即使的确是工厂增加导致了环境污染的加重，要以此就认为当地市政会没有完成保护环境之责的话还是有些勉强。建议楼主考虑将结论改为“除非排除以上因素，否则不能判定大气环境的污染是因工厂引起”可能衔接更好，而关于市政府的职责的结论可以放在下面的段落，层层递进。What further weakens the argument is the fact that even if the Clearview town council（这个可以不用the） is resposible for the air pollution, Braun may not be blamed（may这个词放在这里的话语气似乎不太相符，是要说不能因此就blame Braun还是要说Braun不一定为此负责？）. The attitude to ignore the environment getting worse may not be the personal opinion of Braun. That is to say, he may constantly do effort to fight against the Clearview town council（你想表达的意思，是Braun为了保护该市环境而独自与市政府对抗，是吗？说实话，你这样写倒把Braun描绘成了一位为民请命的青天大老爷……不过句子的意思放在整段中是否合适就难说了……）, and it is also the original reason of his participation of the next mayoral election. Therefore, the author's suggestion may be unfair to Braun.

Ultimately, even assuming that Ann Green, a member of GEC which sounds a environment protecting institution, is more outstanding than Frank Braun, there is no evidence to prove that she would solve the environmental problems in Clearview certainly（其实这里environmental problems前面可以不用the。还有，你这句是想说Ann Green的综合能力比Frank Braun更强？不过根据题目的叙述，你大可不必这样写的，因为原来题目的假设就只是关于改善环境。）. The author fails to lend fact （不好意思，你觉得Lend 与fact形成动宾搭配合适不……）about the Green's （the不要）ever any achievement in environment protecting area. In another words, we even cannot quite sure Green would do effort in this area. Thus, the author's claim may be rejected, before presenting more evidence of the Green's merit to be a mayoral.

As it stands, the conclusion of this argument is not well reasoned. To make it more logically acceptable, the author would have to present more detailed investigations with solid fact about both merit of Ann Green and Frank Braun for the election and appropriate deduction, such as what is the specific reason causes the worse consequence of environment and the more persuasive evidence to prove that Ann Green would solve the pollution problem definitely.
整体来说不错，不过个人认为楼主需要把握句子的意思与整段话或者是整篇文章要驳斥的论点的协调。