=七月流火=小组第1次小组作业 argu112 by SasakiKojiro(已修改)

SasakiKojiroUID: 2678315

A-112…
The speaker’s line of reasoning is that since Franklin Airport is notorious for flight delays, it is likely that the plan that to build new runways by filling in 900 acres of the bay is necessary to reduce the flight delays; meanwhile, the wetlands restoration part, which have previously been damaged by industrialization, of the plan ensures that the bay’s enviroment will actually be helped rather than hurt. Convincing as the reasoning seems of the first glance, further contemplation, reveals that the conclusion is predicated on some dubious, assumptions and biased evidences.
To begin with, the speaker unfairly deems that the increasing capacity of the airport by building new runways entirely determines the reducing of flight delays, while he fails to take into account other factors impacting on the same result. It is highly possible that the Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, it is more likely been attacked by a Typhoon, Hurricane, and Tsunami; It is also likely that there is oftentimes heavily rainfall or sometimes bad weather such as the terrible blizzard which makes the airport runways frozen, these obscure fog which causes our poor visibility, the irregular hunderstorm’s arrival leading to the Airport manangers no solution about those bad weather; meanwhile, there is the possibility that the age bracket of those in Franklin Airport may be more conductive to the flight delays. It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced captain in the plane. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the Airport managers to focus these trouble spots than to build the new runways.
Moreover, it is considerably irration for the speaker to ascribe the wetlands restoration part of the plan exclusively to a better bay’s environment. Perhaps, the restoration of this wetlands may have been a long time, during this time, the Airport manager have no ensures that situation of the restoration part would whether go worse, it is possible that the filling in the bay will not only disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlifes, but also lead to a sudden change of the sea level, then, a serious tsunami’s inevitable. Perhaps, even if the whole plan is helped, it is drastically and enormously increasing in the population of the bay and these amout of the planes that to shrink the spacious airport, thus, which compund the difficulty of reducing the flight delays.
To reiterate, the argument of the speaker is not convincing as it stands, and it is imprudent for the speaker to claim that the build of its new runways is necessary to reduce the flight delays.To make this argument logically more acceptable, the speaker would have to evaluate all possible altervatives and causes for the reducing the flight delays.

maggiegu1019UID: 2683879

TOPIC: ARGUMENT112 - The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the Franklin City Council.

"Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt."



The speaker’s line？ of reasoning is that since Franklin Airport is notorious for flight delays, it is likely that the plan that to build new runways by filling in 900 acres of the bay is necessary to reduce the flight delays; meanwhile, the wetlands restoration part, which have previously been damaged by industrialization, of the plan ensures that the bay’s enviroment will actually be helped rather than hurt. Convincing as the reasoning seems of the first glance, further contemplation, reveals that the conclusion is predicated on some dubious, assumptions and biased evidences.（这段用模板了没？找个层次清楚点的）
To begin with, the speaker unfairly deems that the increasing capacity of the airport by building new runways entirely determines the reducing of flight delays, while he fails to take into account other factors impacting on the same result. It is highly possible that the Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, it is more likely been attacked by a Typhoon, Hurricane, and Tsunami; It is also likely that there is oftentimes heavily rainfall or sometimes bad weather such as the terrible blizzard which makes the airport runways frozen, these obscure fog which causes our poor visibility, the irregular hunderstorm’s arrival leading to the Airport manangers no solution about those bad weather; meanwhile, there is the possibility that the age bracket of those in Franklin Airport may be more conductive to the flight delays. It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced captain in the plane. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the Airport managers to focus these trouble spots than to build the new runways.（你对一个问题展开了很细致的分析，是否应该增加广度，这里问题很多，你对一点分析的再透彻，也只能得这一点的分）

Moreover, it is considerably irration for the speaker to ascribe the wetlands restoration part of the plan exclusively to a better bay’s environment. Perhaps, the restoration of this wetlands may have been a long time, during this time, the Airport manager have no ensures that situation of the restoration part would whether go worse, it is possible that the filling in the bay will not only disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlifes, but also lead to a sudden change of the sea level, then, a serious tsunami’s inevitable. Perhaps, even if the whole plan is helped, it is drastically and enormously increasing in the population of the bay and these amout of the planes that to shrink the spacious airport, thus, which compund the difficulty of reducing the flight delays.

To reiterate, the argument of the speaker is not convincing as it stands, and it is imprudent for the speaker to claim that the build of its new runways is necessary to reduce the flight delays.To make this argument logically more acceptable, the speaker would have to evaluate all possible altervatives and causes for the reducing the flight delays.


我看了下，两段分析的都基本对，但是，我认为EST 的意思是，这个作文按照逻辑错误点给分，虽然分析的细确实很有用。找出比较重要的逻辑错误后，中间建议写3段为妙。

SasakiKojiroUID: 2678315

黑色的是以前的段落 直接无视
褐色为修改后的文章 欢迎继续拍砖


In this argument the speaker recommends that, in order to reduce the flight delays, Franklin city council should admit the proposal anounced by the airport managers instead of the Bay Coalition organization whose consider it as a opposite side.To support the argument, the speaker point out that it is nesessary to reduce the flight delays and ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped. Convincing as the reasoning seems of the first glance, further contemplation, reveals that the conclusion is predicated on some dubious, assumptions and biased evidences.

(To begin with, the speaker unfairly deems that the increasing capacity of the airport by building new runways entirely determines the reducing of flight delays, while he fails to take into account other factors impacting on the same result. It is highly possible that the Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, it is more likely been attacked by a Typhoon, Hurricane, and Tsunami; It is also likely that there is oftentimes heavily rainfall or sometimes bad weather such as the terrible blizzard which makes the airport runways frozen, these obscure fog which causes our poor visibility, the irregular hunderstorm’s arrival leading to the Airport manangers no solution about those bad weather; meanwhile, there is the possibility that the age bracket of those in Franklin Airport may be more conductive to the flight delays. It is possible that there are more younger, inexperienced captain in the plane. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the Airport managers to focus these trouble spots than to build the new runways.)

First of all, the speaker fails to take into account other factors impacting on the same result. It is highly possible that the Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, it is more likely been a bad weather such as a heavily rainfall causes the captain no idears but to have the plane stay in the airport.And it is also possible that the bay near the sea often been attacked by a typhoon, hurricane, and tsunami.What's more, there is the possibility that the age bracket of those in Fanklin airport may be more younger, inexperienced captain in the plane.It appears reasonable, therefore, for the airport managers to focus these trouble spots than to build the new runways.

(Moreover, it is considerably irration for the speaker to ascribe the wetlands restoration part of the plan exclusively to a better bay’s environment. Perhaps, the restoration of this wetlands may have been a long time, during this time, the Airport manager have no ensures that situation of the restoration part would whether go worse, it is possible that the filling in the bay will not only disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlifes, but also lead to a sudden change of the sea level, then, a serious tsunami’s inevitable. Perhaps, even if the whole plan is helped, it is drastically and enormously increasing in the population of the bay and these amout of the planes that to shrink the
spacious airport, thus, which compund the difficulty of reducing the flight delays.)

Secondly, it is considerably irration for the speaker to attribute building new runways exclusively to the reducing of the flight delays. Excluding some factors discussed above, what i want to contend is that even if been adopted the proposal, there is no evidence to promise to reduce the flight delays. Therefore, for instance, with the spacious and considerable runways, the Franklin airport must be
replete with planes than before, and then, there is a question, how can we make sure about all the airplane takes off in time?

Thirdly, the speaker unfairly equates the filling in the bay to the bay's environment will be improving. Generally speaking, the restoration of this wetlands may have been a long time, during this time, the airport manager have no ensurance that the situation of the restoration part would whether go worse, it is possible that the filling will not only disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlifes, but also lead to a sudden change of the sea level, then, a serious dizaster is inevitable.

To reiterate, the argument of the speaker is not convincing as it stands, and it is imprudent for the speaker to claim that the build of its new runways is necessary to reduce the flight delays.To make this argument logically more acceptable, the speaker would have to evaluate all possible altervatives and causes for the reducing the flight delays.