Argument 7=So What=小组第1次作业 by紫薇花开

紫薇花开UID: 2461167

Argument 7.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."

在下一次市长选举中，Clearview的市应投Good Earth Coalition成员Ann Green的票，而不是Clearview市委成员Frank Braun，因为当前的市委成员没有保护我们的环境。举例来说，去年Clearview的工厂数量翻了一番，空气污染水平增加了，而且当地医院因呼吸道疾病就诊的数量增加了25％。如果我们选举Ann Green，Clearview的环境问题肯定将被解决。

紫薇花开UID: 2461167

论断：现任市委不保护环境，为了改善我们的所以选举Ann而不选Frank为市长环境。
论据：1.Ann为Good Earth Coalition成员，Frank为市委成员。

2.过去几年（现任市委在任期间）工厂成倍增加，空气污染增加，呼吸疾病的病人增加。

提纲： 论断不公平，.即便现在污染严重有现任市委不可推卸的责任，但不能一概而论地认为市委所有成员中Frank不关心，不保护环境，文章并没有提供Frank关于环保的态度，或者曾经有过损坏环保的措施

  论断武断，1，文章认为选一位环保组织的成员，环境就可以得到改善，但文章并没有调查Ann对于经济发展和环保并存的问题该如何解决。毕竟作为市长，不但要关心市民的胡僧村环境，还有生活水平的提高2，即使他当选为市长，并且有心致力于环境改善，但我们知道环保需要个部门的配合，文章没有对该人的能力给予相关的证明。


论断盲目，1，作者之说近几年工厂增加，但未说明这些工厂的类型，是环保型还是污染型，2.作者只说明空气污染增加但没有可比性，也许这一任市委领导班子之前污染已经相当严重了，而他们这届确使得有所好转。同时，我们知道污染问题是全世界共同的话题，而air是没有国界，是不停地流动的，所以该地区的环境状况有可能是临近地区造成的。

结论： 作者的论断武断且不公平，论据缺乏説服力。他没有提供或选人在环保上有关成果和能力的证明，也没有提供当今政府及Frank不保护环境的证明。

紫薇花开UID: 2461167

time 2小时   
In this letter, the author concludes all residents of Clearview should vote Ann Green rather than Frank Braun as next major in order to protect our environment by reasoning Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, and Frank Braun is one of the Clearview town council member who are not concerned our environment. At same time, he/she also present three evidence that one is the number of factories has doubled ,air pollution levels have increased patients with respiratory illnesses have increased by 25%. the author`s conclusion that considering protecting our environment, civilian should vote Ann Green rather than Frank Braun seems unfair and insufficient.
To begin with the argument commits a fallacy of hasty generation. Even if Ann Green was a member of Good Earth Coalition, just indicating that he /she is concerned with the environment it does not follow that he /she has a strong well- solving detailing capacity. For example, adjusting all other department, and knowing of industrial product. Unless the arguer provides any solid information concerning his aptitude in solving the above problem which is unknown for tis argument, there is guarantee that he /she is apt to be made a good candidate.
Even if there is enough information on the candidacy of Ann Green, it is inequality for Frank Braun. The argument relying on the additional information that nowadays, environment problems in Clearview town are serious, assumes the current members are not protecting our environment and seriously concludes that Frank Braun isn`t concerned about our environment. However, the argument does not provide any evidence showing he/she has record of measures or destroying our environment. It is likely that the voice or method protecting our environment shatter when confronting the opponents voices thus it is unequal to negate Frank Braun as a candidates in next mayoral election.
Furthermore, the author relies on the fact that the air pollution levels has increased, the number of factories in clearview has doubled and the patients with respiratory illness has increased by 25%.it is unfair that this responsibility should fall on the current town council.
First of all, in this argument, the author shows that factories become more and more but he/she does not provide any information about the factory style, that is, these factories is polluting industry or green factories without these information. It is unfair that these factories commit the responsible for us to justify how these factory pollutes our environment.
The author commit the above same fallacy on the problem of air pollution and respiratory illness .it is obvious that air pollution is the problem all over the world confront, the author falls to emphasize whether current air pollution becomes better or worse comparing with before and nearby town which has similar identity. As for respiratory illness, the author seems skeptical just because he/she are failing to consider other possible alternatives leading to the illness. For example, the patient may be a innate patient with respiratory illness or he/she is an old.
Overall, the conclusion is unequitable and hasty generation. The author neither provide any information on the candidates capacity and endeavor on solving the pollution, nor substantiate the other candidate and the current town council are concerned the pollution. If he/she want to get all civilian approval, the endeavor on further providing conclusive information is necessary.

robotwishUID: 2550184

红色：错误和我的建议，有些觉得不好，没改出来
蓝色：拼写等小错误




In this letter(argument,查了韦氏，几种意思用在这里都不合适), the author concludes all residents of Clearview should vote (for)Ann Green rather than Frank Braun as (the) next major in order to protect our environment by reasoning Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, and Frank Braun is one of the Clearview town council member who are not concerned of our environment. At same time, he/she also presents three evidence that one is the number of factories has doubled , air pollution levels have increased and patients with respiratory illnesses have increased by 25%. The
author`s（’而不是`） conclusion that considering protecting our environment, civilians should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun seems unfair and insufficient.



To begin with , the argument commits a fallacy of hasty generation. Even if Ann Green was a member of Good Earth Coalition, just indicating that he /she is concerned with the environment(加个逗号好一点)it does not follow that he /she has a strong well- solving detailing capacity. For example, adjusting all other department, and knowing of industrial product. Unless the arguer provides any solid information concerning his aptitude in solving the above problem which is unknown for its argument, there is guarantee that he /she is apt to be made a good candidate（感觉读起来很别扭，是否to be elected as a good candidate更好呢？）.
Even if there is enough information on the candidacy of Ann Green, it is inequality for Frank Braun. The argument relying on the additional information that nowadays,（这句怎么断的？nowadays不应该是后面这个从句的状语吗？逗号不需要吧） environment problems in Clearview town are serious, assumes the current members are not protecting our environment and seriously（这个用得不合适） concludes that Frank Braun isn`t concerned about our environment. However, the argument does not provide any evidence showing he/she has record of measures or destroying（这个不该跟showing对应，读不通） our environment. It is likely that the voice or method protecting our environment shatter （读不懂）when confronting the opponents voices thus it is unequal to negate Frank Braun as a candidates in next mayoral election.（这段是说FB被否定是不公平的，但是显得论证地不够充分，你只是点出来没有足够的证据证明FB忽略环境或者毁坏环境，并没有展开来说，比如你可以说members忽略环境，但是不能以偏概全，也许FB在尽力做很多事情，但是独力难支等等，这样而把FB否定是不公平的，这样更好地对应了论断）



Furthermore, the author relies on the fact that the air pollution levels has increased, the number of factories in clearview has doubled and the patients with respiratory illness has increased by 25%.it is unfair that this responsibility should fall on the current town council.


（这里不另起一行比较好）First of all, in this argument, the author shows that factories（the number of factories） become more and more （别扭！）but he/she does not provide any information about the factory style, that is, these factories is
（主谓不一致）polluting industry or green factories without these information（多余了吧）. It is unfair that these factories commit the responsible for us to justify how these factory pollutes our environment.
The author commit the above same fallacy on the problem of air pollution and respiratory illness .it is obvious that air pollution is the problem all over the world confront, the author falls to emphasize whether current air pollution becomes better or worse comparing with （that） before and in nearby town which has similar identity. As for respiratory illness, the author seems skeptical just because he/she are failing to consider other possible alternatives leading to the illness. For example, the patient may be a
（an）innate patient with respiratory illness or he/she is an old.

Overall, the conclusion is unequitable and hasty generation. The author neither provides any information on the candidates capacity and endeavors on solving the pollution, nor substantiates the other candidate and the current town council are concerned the pollution. If he/she want to get all civilian approval, the endeavor on further providing conclusive information is necessary.

总结：
1.作者思路非常清晰，条理性很强，提纲列的很全面
2.长句，复合句较多
3.有一点想提一下，在你提纲中没有列出来就是 “选市长以解决环境问题的能力为标准“ 这个隐含的前提导致的论断错误，但是在你的文章中第二段隐约体现出来一部分，我觉得可以再说的充分一点活着单独一段
4．作者这个反驳的顺序我第一次见到，就是分为论断的三个不合理性去分散攻击，但是都抓住了主要的逻辑错误，中间还用以让步连接。我个人是习惯按照逻辑错误逐层推进地来攻击主要错误。目前无法分辨优劣，也许各有千秋
具体参考帖子：
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-412534-1-1.html
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-416323-1-1.html
水平有限，绝非客气之语，，见谅见谅，欢迎指出讨论

robotwishUID: 2550184

可能改的也不是很到位，头有点晕，见谅！

紫薇花开UID: 2461167

修改贴

In this memo the author concludes all residents of Clearview should vote (for)Ann Green rather than Frank Braun as the next major in order to protect our environment by reasoning Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, and Frank Braun is one of the Clearview town council member who are not concerned of our environment. At same time, he/she also presents three evidence that one is the number of factories has doubled, air pollution levels have increased and patients with respiratory illnesses have increased by 25%. The
author’s conclusion that considering protecting our environment, civilians
should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun seems unfair and insufficient.

To begin with , the argument commits a fallacy of hasty generation. Even if Ann Green was a member of Good Earth Coalition, just indicating that he /she is concerned with the environment. it does not follow that he /she has a strong well- solving detailing capacity. For example, adjusting all other department, and knowing of industrial product. Unless the arguer provides any solid information concerning his aptitude in solving the above problems which is unknown in his argument, there is no guarantee that he /she is apt to be made a good candidate（我觉得不必要改，make 可直接胜任的）.
Even if there is enough information on the candidacy of Ann Green, it is inequality for Frank Braun. The argument relying on the additional information that nowadays environment problems in Clearview town are serious, assumes the current members are not protecting our environment and so seriously concludes that Frank Braun isn’t concerned about our environment. However, the argument does not provide any evidence showing he/she has record of
destroying our environment. It is likely that his voice or method of protecting our environment is shattered when confronting the other member’ voices, thus it is unequal to negate Frank Braun as a candidates in next mayoral election.

Furthermore, the author relies on the fact that the air pollution levels has increased, the number of factories in clearview has doubled and the patients with respiratory illness has increased by 25%. It is unfair that this responsibility should fall on the current town council.
First of all, in this argument, the author shows that the number of factories has increased but he/she does not provide any information about the factory style, that is, these factories are polluting industry or green factories. Without these information It is unfair that these factories commit the responsible polluting air, and it is difficult for us to justify whether these factories pollute our environment or not.
The author commits the above same fallacy on the problem of air pollution and respiratory illness. it is obvious that air pollution is the problem all over the world confront, the author falls to emphasize whether current air pollution becomes worse comparing with before and nearby town which has similar identity. As for respiratory illness, the author seems skeptical just because he/she are failing to consider other possible alternatives leading to the illness. For example, the patient may be an innate patient with respiratory illness or he/she is an old.
Overall, the conclusion is insufficient and hasty generation. The author neither provides any information on the candidates capacity and endeavors
on solving the pollution, nor substantiates
the other candidate and the current town council are concerned the pollution. If he/she want to get all civilian approval, the endeavor on further providing conclusive information is necessary.