Argument112 =美丽G程小组=小组第1次作业 by petric

petricUID: 2719885

A112
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."

提纲：
1.
错误的因果The author fails to prove that the construction of new runways could reduce the flight delays.
2.
airport 的许诺会实现，并且bay that damaged 会恢复The author simply assumes that funding for the proposed restoration of wetlands will be actually effective and can necessarily restore the wetlands to their original situation.
3.
攻击“采取了的措施会帮助改善而非破坏环境” The airport’s promise about funding for restoration of wetland does not demonstrate that we could continue harming our environment.
可能会带来其他的缺点The argument fails to evaluate the positive and negative effects of the proposed actions thoroughly.
4.
The author ignores other solutions to reduce the flight delays.

Grounding on the fact that Franklin Airport needs to build new railways, supposing that flight delays are the result of lacking capacity, and then synthesizing the two hypothesizes and another factor that airport will change a damaged area for the habitat of wildlife; the author accordingly suggests that this plan should be adopted for a seemingly win-win proposal. However, this argument is in fact logically flawed in the following three main aspects.

To begin with , assuming that flight delays are in fact due to Franklin Airport's lack of capacity, the author overlooks the possibility that the arrangement of the flight might have nothing to do with the airport's capacity, or that had only an indirect and negligible impact on the delays. It is entirely possible that Franklin City is a seaside city where the notorious weather such as foggy or raining days keeps all year around. For that matter, the poor arrangement of the airport may also result in the flight delays. If those are the cases, the construction might turn out to be unnecessary and a waste of finance, since this proposal cannot solve the headache delays.

Even assuming the shortage of capacity of Franklin Airport contributes to the flight delay, the author unfairly assumes that the promise of the airport is bound to protect the damaged wetlands in areas of the bay. Yet, the author fails to offer any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is just likely that this promise will not be adopted due to the international finical crisis which renders the protection schedule unrealistic.
Besides we are not informed about the surroundings of wetlands restoration part of the plan. Whether the damaged area can be change into a suitable place for the habitat of all the wildlife? And whether those original wildlife will immigrate to the new area without being harmed? However, common sense tells us that many of the botanical creatures will not be the same even if being moved to a new area. If the polluted area cannot turn out to be changed, why do people allow the further destroy carrying on without taking the advice of the Bay Coalition Organization? Without ruling out and considering these possible reasons , the author cannot convince me that funding the restoration may helped the bay's environment rather than hurt.

Even if this proposal might ensure no harm to the wildlife, no evidence is substantiated that tidal patterns might not be disrupted or other problems will not be caused. Yet it might not be the case, due to the geographical change of the bay. Furthermore the noise brought by the flight in the new areas or removal other constructions in new land might be troublesome. For that matter, the author overlooks other alternative choices to solve the flight delays problems, such as proper arrangement of the flight accordingly to the weather condition and the like. In short, without weighing the disadvantages with the advantages brought by the plan as well as other better alternatives, the author cannot hastily draw any conclusion whatsoever.

In sum , the argument relies on certain problematic assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands . To bolster the recommendation, the author should provide the dominate reasons of flight delays. To better access it , I need to know whether funding
restoration for a damaged area will worth being changed to the habitat of wildlife without cause other new headache problems and so on.