0910[NORTH AMERICA FLYING] argument 7 by monkeybiao

monkeybiaoUID: 2527713

哎，花了34mins, 有点遗憾，限时失败。
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."

Text body:
According to this letter, the author asserts that residents should vote for the good earth coalition member rather than the member of the clearview town council because he thinks that the candidate in the good earth coalition will protect and change the environment for the local residents, and all the environment problems will be solved if the candidate in good earth coalition become the mayor in this city. For several reasons, the information provided is not persuasive and cogent enough.

To begin with, we are unclear that whether the current mayor is a member of good earth coalition or clearview town council. How can we mere believe in those in the good earth coalition? Maybe now the current mayor is the very member in the good earth coalition who does not care about the environment protection. If we continue to choose the member of Good earth coalition who is not care about our environment protection, what consequences will be caused in the future?

Secondly, even if the current mayor is a member of Clearview town council who are not protecting the environment, based on this point, we cannot deny that all the members in the Clear view pay no attention on those environment issues, maybe the current mayor is a special one who pays no attention on the environment protection, maybe most of the members are care about the living condition around us. So it is unfair to take questions into consideration unilaterally.

Thirdly, according to the example, more patients who have respiratory illnesses maybe caused by other reasons, rather than the environment pollution. And also the environment pollution maybe caused by many other reasons. There is no direct relationship between the residents' respiratory illnesses and pollution. Maybe these people smoke more frequently than the former years which may cause the respiratory diseases. Moreover, perhaps the basic population has increased while the numbers of the hospitals are not increased at the same time.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen its assertion that the author should provide that who is the current mayor is this city, the member of Good earth coalition or Clearview town council. The relationship between the environment pollution and the increased residents who get the respiratory diseases should be made clear. And also whether the population has increased these years should be calculated. By adding these details, the argument will become more cogent, persuasive and convincing.

monkeybiaoUID: 2527713

According to this letter, the author asserts that residents should vote for the good earth coalition member rather than the member of the clearview town council because he thinks that the candidate in the good earth coalition will protect and change the environment for the local residents, and all the environment problems will be solved if the candidate in good earth coalition become the mayor in this city. For several reasons, the information provided is not persuasive and cogent enough.
( According to this letter, the author asserts that residents should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun. Because they are from different paries, people are more likely to trust the Good Earth Council. Duing to the current mayor in this city is not care about the environment problems which cause the increasing patients with respiratory illness which make their residents suffering more painful. Therefore people simplify think that if the member in Good earth council elect to be the next mayor, all the problems will be resolved. It seems logical and reasonable at the first glance, but there are some obvious fallacies should be pointed out.)

To begin with, we are unclear that whether the current mayor is a member of good earth coalition or clearview town council. How can we mere believe in those members in the good earth coalition? Maybe now the current mayor is the very member in the good earth coalition who does not care about the environment protection either. If we continue to choose the member of Good earth coalition who is not care about our environment protection, what consequences will be caused in the future?

Secondly, even if the current mayor is a member of Clearview town council who is not protecting the environment, based on this point, we cannot deny that all the members in the Clearview pay no attention on those environment issues, maybe the current mayor is a special or unique one who pays no attention on the environment protection, maybe most of the members are care about the living condition which is quite closely linked to our daily life. So it is unfair to take questions into consideration unilaterally.

Thirdly, according to the example, more patients who have respiratory illnesses maybe caused by other reasons, rather than the environment pollution. And also the environment pollution maybe caused by many other reasons. There is no direct relationship between the residents’ respiratory illnesses and pollution. Maybe these people smoke more frequently than the former years which may cause the respiratory diseases. Moreover, perhaps the basic population has increased while the numbers of the hospital are not increased at the same time.

What's more, the duty of a mayor should not limit on those issues related on environment pollution. There are much more important staffs which should be resolved urgently, such as the construction of city, how to bring (absorb) the foreign investors (investment), and so forth. Environment pollution is just one thing needed to be solved. Undeniably, environment pollution is one problem needed to be resolved; meanwhile some other issue waiting to be handled should not be ignored.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen its assertion that the author should provide that who is the current mayor is this city, the member of Good earth coalition or Clearview town council. The relationship between the environment pollution and the increased residents who get the respiratory diseases should make clear. And also whether the population has increased these years should be calculated. By adding these details, the argument will become more cogent, persuasive and convincing.
( Thus, the argument is unconvincing enough as it stands. To strengthen its assertion, the author should provide some details related to the current mayor, and the qualities of the each candidate from the different the departments. Moreover, the demography profile of this city in recent years should be made it clear. And finally, the direct reasons which are relevant to the health of people life should be found out immediately, and so forth. By adding these detail, the argument are more cogent, believable and persuasive than before.)