Argument7 =So What=小组第1次作业 by 2006201652

2006201652UID: 2496703

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."
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。
提纲:
1.没有的证据显示该市Frank Braun 不关心环境问题。工厂，空气污染，病人增加不足以证明。工厂也许政府管不了，空气污染有别原因，病人增加可能由于人对健康意识增加。
2.没有说Ann Green关心环境。只说是一组织成员，可能他本人不关心环境。
3.作者武断的说Ann Green能解决问题。Green本人没有说，作者说无效。

2006201652UID: 2496703

In the letter, the arguer concludes that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather Frank Braun. He first claims that Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. Secondly, he provides the examples that the number of factories increased, air pollution levels, and the patients with respiratory illness have increased. And finally the arguer maintains that the Ann Green can solve the environmental problems.

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence to convince us that Frank Braun in not concerned with environmental problems. Firstly, the arguer assumpts that it is the increasing number of factories that contribute to deteriorate the air condition. Yet, the arguer does not provide any evidence that it is indeed due to the factories which release harmful gas or other materials into the air. Secondly, the arguer's assumption that the air pollution is more serious is based on the fact that the number of patients with respiratory illness is increasing. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of evidence and convince. It is possible that the local people had this sort of healthy problems in the past, and it is recently that an increasing number of people are becoming more conscious about a good healthy condition because of a development of economic condition.

Next, the arguer does not convey useful information of Ann Green except that he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition (GEC). This piece of information is not enough and even not in the case. Indeed, he is a member of the GEC, yet is he concerned much with the environmental problems? To support the conclusion that Ann Green is worth to elect, the author has to provide more information about Ann Green who is really concerned with environmental problems and who has contributed a lot to protect the local environment.

Finally, the arguer's prediction that Ann Green will certainly solve the existing environmental problems is absolutely unfounded. In the letter, the arguer does not provide any evidence to support the prediction, and it is the arguer who claims Ann Green will solve the certain problems while Ann Green himself did not assert that he would take measures to solve these problems. It is of great possibility that Ann Green does not care about these tough problems and then will not take any steps to dispatch them. If this is the condition, then the arguer's assumption is definitely fallacious.

Overall, the arguer's acclaim that the Ann Green is the best person to elect is doubtful and unfounded when take the current mayor's and Ann Green's conscience of protecting environment. To strengthen his conclusion, the author should search more information about what is discussed above.

sha-shineUID: 2610662

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence to convince us that Frank Braun in not concerned with environmental problems. Firstly（这个和下面的secondly在上面用过，应避免重复。建议这两个地方分别用：Most obviously, In addition.）, the arguer assumpts（我在词典里没有查到assumpt,有assumption,你是不是想写assume？） that it is the increasing number of factories that contribute to deteriorate the air condition. Yet, the arguer does not provide any evidence (provide上面已经说过，这里可以用另外一种方式说，例如：作者没有证明。可说“证明”的词有：argue, bear out, attest, prove, testify… 总有一款适合你) that it is indeed due to the factories which release harmful gas or other materials into the air. Secondly（同“Firstly”）, the arguer's assumption that the air pollution is more serious is based on the fact that the number of patients（这里我认为应该用patient就可以
不用复数，因为代指是患者而不是说具体的哪一些患者） with respiratory illness is increasing. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of evidence and convince. It is possible that the local people had this sort of healthy problems in the past, and it is recently that an increasing number of people are becoming more conscious about a good healthy condition because of a development of economic condition.

Next（建议用Furthermore等词来替代这里Next这样的简单词）, the arguer does not convey useful information of Ann Green except that he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition (GEC).（这句话好像没有写完一样，应该没有表达出你要表达的内容） This piece of information is not enough and even not in the case. Indeed, he is a member of the GEC, yet is he concerned much with the environmental problems? To support the conclusion that Ann Green is worth to elect, the author has to provide more information about Ann Green who is really concerned with environmental problems and who has contributed a lot to protect the local environment.

Finally（Finally在首段已经用过，这里最好换一个词替代，建议：Last but not least 这样无意中词的数量也增加了三个，很好对付ETS的数词软件）, the arguer's prediction that Ann Green will certainly solve the existing environmental problems is absolutely unfounded. In the letter（~）, the arguer does not provide any evidence to support the prediction, and it is the arguer who claims Ann Green will solve the certain problems while Ann Green himself did not assert that he would take measures to solve these problems. It is of great possibility that Ann Green does not care about these tough problems and then will not take any steps to dispatch them. If this is the condition, then the arguer's assumption is definitely fallacious.

Overall, the arguer's acclaim that the Ann Green is the best person to elect（to表目的
这里按你的意思应该用被动） is doubtful and unfounded when（这里似乎少了个主语
或者加一个to） take the current mayor's and Ann Green's conscience of protecting environment（这是在说A保护环境的良知么？）. To strengthen his conclusion, the author should search more information about what is discussed above.（我认为最后一段应该再复述下第一段提出来的三个问题，或者三个问题的解决方案，这样会更完美些）
1.第一段开头很好，感觉很有条理。不过总体上如果中间的三段稍微调整下顺序，能按照开头提出的那三个顺序安排，会让考官感觉你的文章很有条理，思维缜密。
2.作者可以多积累些连词，好在写作中替换，用过的最好就不要再用了。
3.我英语水平本身不高。已尽力找出我认为应该改善的地方，如有不妥再继续讨论吧。
4.橙色是我建议修改的地方 绿色是不确定要和你商讨的地方  
  蓝色是我在你的这个文章里学到的东西
另，我的Argument写的匆忙，没有经word改错，有些低等错误请见解，下次一定注意

2006201652UID: 2496703

In the letter, the arguer concludes that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather Frank Braun. He first claims that Ann Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition. Secondly, he provides the examples that the number of factories increased, air pollution levels, and the patients with respiratory illness have increased. And finally the arguer maintains that the Ann Green can solve the environmental problems.

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence to convince us that Frank Braun in not concerned with environmental problems. Most obviously, the arguer assumpts assume that it is the increasing number of factories that contribute to deteriorate the air condition. Yet, the arguer does not claim any evidence that it is indeed due to the factories which release harmful gas or other materials into the air. In additional, the arguer's assumption that the air pollution is more serious is based on the fact that the number of patients with respiratory illness is increasing. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of evidence and convince. It is possible that the local people had this sort of healthy problems in the past, and it is recently that an increasing number of people are becoming more conscious about a good healthy condition because of a development of economic condition.

Furthermore, the arguer does not convey more useful information of Ann Green in the letter except that he is a member of the Good Earth Coalition (GEC). This piece of information is not enough and even not in the case. Indeed, he is a member of the GEC, yet is he concerned much with the environmental problems? To support the conclusion that Ann Green is worth to elect, the author has to provide more information about Ann Green who is really concerned with environmental problems and who has contributed a lot to protect the local environment.

Last but not least, the arguer's prediction that Ann Green will certainly solve the existing environmental problems is absolutely unfounded. In the letter, the arguer does not provide any evidence to support the prediction, and it is the arguer who claims Ann Green will solve the certain problems while Ann Green himself did not assert that he would take measures to solve these problems. It is of great possibility that Ann Green does not care about these tough problems and then will not take any steps to dispatch them. If this is the condition, then the arguer's assumption is definitely fallacious.

Overall, the arguer's acclaim that the Ann Green is the best person to elect is doubtful and unfounded when（take the current mayor's and Ann Green's conscience of protecting environment（. To strengthen his conclusion, the author should search more information about what is discussed above.