【kaleidoscope】小组第三次作业 AGREMENT7 by rjyuu（编外）

rjyuuUID: 2591508

TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - The following appearedin 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 GoodEarth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview towncouncil, because the current members are not protecting our environment. Forexample, during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled,air pollution levels have increased, and the local hospital has treated 25percent more patients with respiratory illnesses. If weelect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly besolved."



In this argument, the author tries to persuade residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green instead of Frank Braun as the nextmayor. To support his recommendation the author presents some evidence claimingthat current members of town council fail to protect the environment effectively.According to his point of view, Ann, a member of Good Earth Coalition, undoubtedlyshould be voted for. Clearly examining the argument we may find it iswell-stated yet by no means well-reasoned.

First and foremost, the evidence providedby the author is insufficient to prove that presently members are notprotecting the environment. Increasing number of factories does not necessarilyresult in more pollution to the environment since it is entirely possible allthe new factories were built with some most advanced technology, which are comparablyclean and harmless to the environment. Besides, there is no evidence suggestingwe should blame the town council for the increased air pollution since it maybe some historical problems left by their former members or an effect resultingfrom more dirty factories built in the neighboring towns. What’s more，25 percent more patients withrespiratory illness in local hospital indicates nothing, since there is nodirect proof that this is due to a worsening environment, may be just anothercontagious respiratory illnesses suddenly broke out in the town. In conclusion,the author’s assumption that currently members are protecting the environmentis absolutely soundless and unfair.

In addition, granted that currently membersreally fail to protecting the environment, there is no guarantee that theenvironment problems will certainly be solved if Ann Green is elected as the mayor.On the one hand, Ann's identity as a member of a green organization does notnecessarily indicates she is really concerned about environment protection; Onthe other hand, a warm heart to do something is one thing, an ability tosuccessfully make it real is another. Even if Ann does harbor a strong desireto protect the environment, without more evidence concerning her experience andknowledge, the author could not convince us that she is qualified to protectthe environment.

Finally, even though Ann is able to protectthe local environment effectively, there are many more important factors to beconsidered when people decide who should be voted for the mayor. For example,can Ann ensure the local economy develop at a tremendous speed? Can sheguarantee the local welfare system to be as good as before? Will some of hernew policies affect people's life in a negative way? And since we know nothingabout other applicants, it is entirely possible Frank Braun, or any otherapplicants did a much better job in all the things mentioned above. If so,there is no reason to vote for Ann Green just because she is environment protector. A mayor has many more important tasks after all.

In conclusion, the argument is not soconvincing as it stands. To make it more persuasive, the author should provideus with more powerful evidence showing present members are not protecting theenvironment. Also, to enable citizens make a wise choice, the author shouldprovide us with more information about Ann Green and other applicants.