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

xwloveUID: 2481588

Argument7=So What=小组第1次作业 by xwlove

:)

xwloveUID: 2481588

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."

片面观点

Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition

If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved.

Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council

the current members are not protecting our environment

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.


提纲body
其一：环境污染的真正原因：可能收到邻近区域的影响、环境污染是一个累积过程（时间积累的效应而非当权者责任）、可能是以前旧有的工厂不注意保护环境；其二：在不知道Ann Green的环境政策之前，我们不知道Frank Braun不一定不是环保主义者，Ann Green不一定能真正解决environmental problems。

其二：政策计划是一个tradeoff过程，经济发展与环境保护是一个tradeoff过程。当前政策必须综合做方面因素考虑，而不能局限于过分夸大环境保护。

xwloveUID: 2481588

Time：16：30-17:51  2009年5月25日

The argument take it for granted that an increase of air pollution levels was due to the current members' not protecting their environment, while Ann Green, as a member of the Good Earth Coalition, can certainly solve the environmental problems in Clearview, so residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun. The seemingly true assertion doesn't hold water upon thorough reflection.

On one hand, the environmental pollution is not necessarily caused by the current members' not protecting their environment, considering that air pollution is a long accumulative process and that it may not pop out in merely one term. Perhaps the air pollution deteriorates gradually with the long development of Clearview's economy, or it’s adversely affected by polluted air in neighborhood.
The arguer mentions the evidence that the number of factories in Clearview and patients with respiratory illnesses increased. The question is, whether or not the new factories lead to air pollution directly, whether or not respiratory illnesses were caused directly by air pollution. There might be possibilities that the majority of the new factories are environment-friendly while the old ones are not, and that respiratory illnesses were affected by climate change or epidemics.

On the other hand, before Ann Green and Frank Braun declare Their environmental policies, we simply don't know for sure whether Ann Green will take affective measures to solve the environmental problems, and whether Frank Braun is a environmentalist or not. It's arbitrary to say that Frank Braun is not protecting the environment and the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved if Ann Green is elected.

More importantly, now that the mayoral election choose those who serve for the interests of all the residents of Clearview, we should bear in mind policy making, in order to gain efficiency as well as equality, is a process of tradeoff, a trade off between the interests of the majority and the minority, a trade off between environment protection and economic development. If, probably, the priority goes to employment and economic development, we can't not overemphasize environment protection to an unrealistic extent，as it indicated by the so-called Kuznets inverted U-Curve in economic theory that the environment quality will decline first and then improve.

To sum up, the argument mentioned above may not see through the true reasons of air pollution and ignore the principles of policy making as well. We should wait and see Ann Green's and Frank Braun's manifestation and think over the balance between environment protection and economic development.

xwloveUID: 2481588

偶的处女作，n多简单单词忘记，拼写错误。
唉，今夜又无眠，我要抱着六级词汇书睡觉了。

terraliUID: 2599465

The argument take it for granted that an increase of air pollution levels was due to the current members' not protecting their environment, while Ann Green, as a member of the Good Earth Coalition, can certainly solve the environmental problems in Clearview, so residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun. The seemingly true assertion doesn't hold water upon thorough reflection.
在题目中，最后的结论是大家应该选A当市长，所以在转述题目观点的时候是不是把主题句先说出来好些？就是speaker建议大家选A因为她可以保护环境这样，放在前头。

On one hand, the environmental pollution is not necessarily caused by the current members' not protecting their environment, considering that air pollution is a long accumulative process and that it may not pop out in merely one term. Perhaps the air pollution deteriorates gradually with the long development of Clearview's economy, or it’s adversely affected by polluted air in neighborhood.
这段没有结论句啊。前面说空气污染可能长时间，可能别人造成的，然后是不是应该加上“所以，该论断是错误的”这样表达你自己观点的结论呢。

The arguer mentions the evidence that the number of factories in Clearview and patients with respiratory illnesses increased. The question is, whether or not the new factories lead to air pollution directly, whether or not respiratory illnesses were caused directly by air pollution. 这个句子用得不好。问题是，是否。。。这样来说，后面不好论证啊。基本上ARGUMEN里就是反驳，论证，可这个句子即没有反驳或转述原文，也没有明确表达你的观点，|支持或反对| 就接下来开始提出其他可能性了There might be possibilities that the majority of the new factories are environment-friendly while the old ones are not, and that respiratory illnesses were affected by climate change or epidemics.

On the other hand, before Ann Green and Frank Braun declare Their environmental policies, we simply don't know for sure whether Ann Green will take affective measures to solve the environmental problems, and whether Frank Braun is a environmentalist or not. 环保主义者的特征是，保护环境，但并不意味不是环保主义者就不保护环境，这个OR NOT 用得不太合适。这么用意思是，不是环保主义者就不保护环境了It's arbitrary to say that Frank Braun is not protecting the environment and the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved if Ann Green is elected.

More importantly, now that the mayoral election choose those who serve for the interests of all the residents of Clearview, we should bear in mind policy making, in order to gain efficiency as well as equality, is a process of tradeoff, a trade off between the interests of the majority and the minority, a trade off between environment protection and economic development. If, probably, the priority goes to employment and economic development, we can't not overemphasize environment protection to an unrealistic extent，as it indicated by the so-called Kuznets inverted U-Curve in economic theory that the environment quality will decline first and then improve. 这一段是不是有点偏？因为我没看到题目有提到这方面的问题。感觉带一下就可以。

To sum up, the argument mentioned above may not see through the true reasons of air pollution and ignore the principles of policy making as well. We should wait and see Ann Green's and Frank Braun's manifestation and think over the balance between environment protection and economic development.


恩，题目中有个最大的错误没有挑啊。就是那个属于某个团体并不意味着会做那个事情。A属于环保团体不意味着她会环保，B的团体没有环保也不意味着他当了市长就不环保。另外，我觉得驳斥的顺序应该稍微调整一下。基本上，一个题目的逻辑都是这样：

结论——论证——原因（理由）

一般我自己倾向从原因入手开始驳斥，原因不可靠，（空气污染，市民生病），然后进一步驳斥论证过程，即推理，（就是她属于环保团体就一定环保，）然后可能再提点其他可能性，最后得出结论不可靠。

xwloveUID: 2481588

5# terrali 谢谢，但是我想哭%>_<%

terraliUID: 2599465

为什么想哭？只不过第一次作业而已，你运气不好罢了，摸摸，别那么脆弱，GT路上的人，从来都不应该有难过的时间