Argu7 求拍砖

eg_daidaiUID: 2447638

还有10天国外机考，作文一直没怎么看，argu今天掐时间写的，恳求各位多提宝贵意见。。。

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: 457
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-8-18 23:02:39

The argument provides a sound case for arguing that residents in Clearview should vote for Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than Frank Braun, a member of Clearview town council. However, close scrutiny could reveal that this argument is suffered from some flaws and thus unconvincing.

First, no evidence is provided to support that Ann Green, a member of Good Earth Coalition, advocates environment protection. Though the name of the coalition sounds like it aims at environment protection, nothing is provided to prove that it has taken effective means to make the environment better. Nothing but its name, if at all, could indicate that the objective of good earth Coalition is related to environment protection. Even when it is really its aim, it still could be possible that the Good Earth Coalition is just an organization claiming to develop a good earth, but the members of it bear little responsibility to realize their promise. Moreover, even if it is really an effective environment protection organization, Ann Green, as a member of it, still could not be assured to be in favor for environment protection, as individual difference could not be overlooked in a group.

In addition, the truth that environment problem got more serious could not speak for that Frank Braun would not be dedicated to solving the environment problem, if he would be selected as mayor. Worse as the environment got in the last year, it is still not reasonable to blame the current Clearview town council as they did nothing to protect the environment. Some inevitable factors, such as the increase in population, economical boom and industry development could account for this unexpected result. It is possible that the council had done their best to prevent the pollution and what the reality appeared was the least bad outcome by their efforts. Even when people admitted that the council did do nothing to protect the environment, Frank Braun could not be expected to do less contribution to environment protection as the same reason that, a group cannot speak for attitude of individuals in it.

Third, even granted that Ann Green will be dedicated to securing the environment after his inauguration, it is still hasty to say that the environmental problems could be solved. Other factors of social reality, such as population, education, economic and wars, could inevitably have a negative contribution to the environment. No such perfect means to remove the problem could be promised.

In conclusion, more investigation of the achievement and advocation of each organization as well as the two candidates could make the argument more convincing. A sophisticated information and knowledge into the social reality of
Clearview is also expected, by which means could the residents of Clearview make their decisions for their mayor.

huangshuo880505UID: 2573980

我写的A7，跟一下~451字 貌似有很多拼写错误。。。。可是不知道怎么word里看不出来纠错了。。。
In this argument, the author concludes that the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved if the residents elect Ann Green who is a menber of the Good Earth Coalition. To justify this conclusion, the author pionts out that, the residents should not vote for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council, because the current menbers are not protecting our environment. To support this conclusion, the author also cites various facts as evidences of the worse environment. However, these evidence provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion and I find this argument specious on several grounds.

First of all, the argument rests on the assumption that during the past year the increasing number of factories, increasing level of air pollution and the increasing number of patients with respiratory illnesses the local hospital has treated will suffice to illustrate the current menbers are not protecting our environment. However, the author has not adequately shown it. It is entirely possible that the new factories are all environmentally friendly, or that the increasing level of air pollution is meanly due to that the whole country’s environment level has fallen. It is also possible that the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses are not caused by air pollution but the aging problem. Since the author fails to account for these possible explanations for the facts he cites, the cannot convince me that the current members are not protecting our environmeng.

Furthermore, even if it has been proved that the current members are really not protecting our environment, the author provides no evidence to show Frank Braun has do nothing to protect the environment. Perhaps environment problems are of great importance to him and he made a great number of suggestions but the Clearview town council didn’t lesten to them. Under that circumstance, the author’s argument would be underminded.

Addtionally, the author unfairly assumes the feasibility of the conclusion in that he believe if the residents elect Ann Green, the environmental problems will certainly be solved. However, the proposal would not guarantee the expected consequence. Perhaps Ann, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, are really concerned about the environment problems, but she is not capable to solve this question. In short, until the author provides further information about Ann Green’s capability, this argument remains dubious at best.

In sum, as it stands the argument is indefensible and wholly unpersuasive. To strenthen it the author must provide clear evidence that the environment problems are serious because the current members are not protecting it, especially Frank Braun. In order to better evaluate the argument, I need more information about if Ann Green will solve these environmental problems efficiently.