ARGUMENT112 [Victors小组]第九次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

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."
WORDS: 501          TIME: 00:30:00         


In this argument, the author recommends Franklin City Council to accept the plan of Franklin Airport to build new runways by filling the bay. To justify this recommendation, the author points out that Franklin Airport is notorious for its flight delays which could be reduced by increasing the capacity. Moreover, the author claims that the airport plan to restore the wetlands in the region destroyed by industrialization could be compensation. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that low capacity of the airport contributed to the notorious flight delays in Franklin Airport. No evidences provided in the passage support it. It is totally possible that airport capacity is far more than the maximum number of daily flights and those flight delays might be related to bad weather condition which is induced by the specific geographic features of the airport location. Or perhaps poor air-controlling of the region should be responsible for such delays. Author's failure to eliminate or even consider such possibilities renders the assumption that airport runways are not sufficient highly suspect, let alone the recommendation for building new ones.

If assuming insufficient runways is the reason for flight delays, it doesn't necessarily warrant that filling the bay in order to build new runways is the only resolution. Maybe the airport could modify the working pattern to develop the runway capacity so as to decrease flight delays. Or perhaps it could use other places near the airport, such as the country fields, un-occupied neighborhoods for new runway construction. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion that constructing new runways should be the only way for preventing flight delays.

On another hand, no warrant could be made that the airport would definitely carry out the proposal for restoration of wetlands. It is totally possible that the airport provided this plan as compensating part for filling the bay to get support from city council. Or maybe the construction work might induce financial problems which would impede restoration plan for wetlands. Besides, commonsense informs us that environmental destructions could hardly be reversed, no matter what efforts human being might accomplish. For that matter, the feasibility of the plan to restore environment destroyed by industrialization still opens to question, thus makes me hesitate to accept the recommendation.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should eliminate other possible factors that might lead to flight delays and establish the causal relationship between low capacity of the airport and flight delays. In addition, the author should provide more evidences to show that the plan for restoring the wetlands near the bay would be implemented and would do good to the environment there. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether there are other choice for the airport to overcome the problem of flight delays and if filling the bay would induce other disadvantages to the region.

solartorchUID: 2244205

In this argument, the author recommends Franklin City Council to accept the plan of Franklin Airport to build new runways by filling the bay. To justify this recommendation, the author points out that Franklin Airport is notorious for its flight delays which could be reduced by increasing the capacity. Moreover, the author claims that the airport plan to restore the wetlands in the region destroyed by industrialization could be compensation. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that low capacity of the airport contributed to the notorious flight delays in Franklin Airport. No evidences provided in the passage support it. It is totally possible that airport capacity is far more than the maximum number of daily flights and those flight delays might be related to bad weather condition which is induced by the specific geographic features of the airport location. Or perhaps poor air-controlling of the region should be responsible for such delays. Author's failure to eliminate or even consider such possibilities renders the assumption that airport runways are not sufficient highly suspect, let alone the recommendation for building new ones. 第一段说capability不是问题。

If assuming insufficient runways is the reason for flight delays, it doesn't necessarily warrant that filling the bay in order to build new runways is the only resolution. Maybe the airport could modify the working pattern to develop the runway capacity so as to decrease flight delays. Or perhaps it could use other places near the airport, such as the country fields,or un-occupied neighborhoods for new runway construction. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion that constructing new runways should be the only way for preventing flight delays. 第二段说即使前期成立，recommendation也不一定成立.稍稍有点牵强，不过能想到这一点很不错

On another hand, no warrant could be made that the airport would definitely carry out the proposal for restoration of wetlands.主题句有点没有覆盖整段内容 It is totally possible that the airport provided this plan as compensating part for filling the bay to get support from city council. Or maybe the construction work might induce financial problems which would impede restoration plan for wetlands. Besides, commonsense informs us that environmental destructions could hardly be reversed, no matter what efforts human being might accomplish efforts 用exert比较好. For that matter, the feasibility of the plan to restore environment destroyed by industrialization still opens to question, thus makes me hesitate to accept the recommendation.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should eliminate other possible factors that might lead to flight delays and establish the causal relationship between low capacity of the airport and flight delays. In addition, the author should provide more evidences to show that the plan for restoring the wetlands near the bay would be implemented and would do good to the environment there. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether there are other choice for the airport to overcome the problem of flight delays and if filling the bay would induce other disadvantages to the region.末端总结

一个小小的建议，觉得LZ首末段相对中间断有点长了。其他写的很不错。