argument7【kaleidoscope】小组第三次作业

cloverlanpusUID：2606441

In this argument, the arguer concludes that we should vote for Ann Green as the next mayor rather than Frank Braun for the reason that  Ann would solve the environmental problems, but Frank would not. However, this  reason is unsound due to the absence of evidence to support it. In addition, the auger judge the ability of a major subjectively by his performance in solving the environmental problems which is not comprehensive .

Firstly, the arguer fails to convince me that Frank lacks the ability of protecting Clearview's environment. The evidence he cites about the current environmental condition lacks credibility. Increasing number of factories doesn't surely lead to worse environment. And more patients with respiratory illness may not be the result of air pollution.It is entirely possible that there is a nationwide infectious disease causing more respiratory illness across the nation.Even if the environment were indeed worse, Frank may also be innocent. The arguer assumes that the performance of town council applies specifically to Frank without evidence that Frank will surely reflect the general level. Thus, unless more information about Frank's plan about the protecting environment is provided, the arguer's conclusion can not convince me.

Secondly, the assertion that Ann will protect environment is also unsound. Arguer thinks highly of her only because she is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. Besides no study about the Good Earth Coalition's recent activities, Ann's performance in this institution and further plan on Clesrview's environment are also unknown. The arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the Good Earth Coalition exist in name only, but have no real actions. To strongly demonstrate that his preference to Ann is objective, more reports of Ann's achievement in the past and plan in the future are indispensable.

  Even if Ann were more competent for the work of protecting environment  than Frank, the arguer still cannot conclude that Ann is the better chose for mayor for he unfairly overlook other parts of a mayor's duty. After all, protecting the environment is only one part of mayor's work which can hardly represent one's entire competence.  Necessarily through evaluating that Ann's abilities and plans in every part of a mayor's job are better than Frank can the arguer convince me that Ann is a deserving chose.

To sum up, this arguer fails to support his conclusions directly and effectively . More information about Ann's and Frank's plans on the issue of environment is needed and other aspect of a mayor's work should also be take into consideration if the arguer want to strengthen his argument.  

rjyuuUID：2591508

1# cloverlanpus

In this argument, the arguer concludes thatwe should vote for Ann Green as the next mayor rather than Frank Braun for thereason that
Ann would solve theenvironmental problems, but Frank would not. However, this
reason is unsound due to the absence ofevidence to support it. In addition, the augerjudge the ability of a major subjectively by his performance in solving theenvironmental problems which is not comprehensive .（传说。。。并不建议在第一段就罗列具体错误）

Firstly, the arguer fails to convince methat Frank lacks the ability of protecting Clearview's environment. Theevidence he cites about the current environmental condition lacks credibility.Increasing number of factories doesn't surely lead to worse environment.（why?加上粗暴有力的反例就更完美了：） Andmore patients with respiratory illness may not be the result of airpollution.It is entirely possible that there is a nationwide infectiousdisease causing more respiratory illness across the nation.Even if theenvironment were（was） indeed worse, Frank mayalso be innocent. The arguer assumes that the performance of town councilapplies specifically to Frank without evidence that Frank will surelyreflect the general level (这是…?）. Thus, unless more information aboutFrank's plan about the protectingenvironment is provided, the arguer's conclusion can not convince me.

Secondly, the assertion that Ann willprotect environment is also unsound.（the） Arguer thinks highly of her only because she is a member of theGood Earth Coalition. Besides, no study about the Good Earth Coalition's recentactivities, Ann's performance in this institution and further plan onClesrview's environment are also unknown. The arguer fails to rule out thepossibility that the Good Earth Coalition exist(s)in name only, but(貌似不是强转折关系) have no real actions. To stronglydemonstrate that his preference to Ann is objective, more reports of Ann'sachievement in the past and plan in the future are indispensable.


（能不能有个finally之类的词呢？）Even if Ann were morecompetent for the work of protecting environment
than Frank, the arguer still cannot concludethat Ann is the better chose(choice) for mayorfor he unfairly overlook other parts of a mayor's duty. After all, protectingthe environment is only one part of mayor's work which can hardly representone's entire competence.
Necessarilythrough(by through 后面加名词通常) evaluating that Ann'sabilities and plans in every part of a mayor's job are better than Frank canthe arguer convince me that Ann is a deserving chose(choice).

To sum up, this arguer fails to support hisconclusions directly and effectively. More information about Ann's and Frank'splans on the issue of environment is needed and other aspect of a mayor's workshould also be take（n） into consideration if the arguer want to strengthen hisargument.




语言...建议背下模板  



逻辑非常好！


加油！