0910AW 同主题写作第十三期 argument7 by 贝拉拉狂想 修改by cmj

贝拉拉狂想UID: 2649512

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."

Although this argument is established upon a sound starting point, hardly could the author reach his/her final conclusion since series irrational inferences undermine it. The author ignores some alternative possibilities, and provides several unconvincing evidences which make his/her proposal unbelievable.

The author first needs to clarify whether the environmental situation is the decisive factor considered by Clearview’s residents when they vote on their mayoral. It is unreason that negate a mayor only because his/her do not protect environment so well. The author overlooks, or chose to ignore other alternative possibilities which influence citizens’ decision when they chose their mayor. Such as, whether the economic level increased since the mayor has taken office; how many new employment opportunities supplies to citizens because the mayor’s work; whether infrastructure facilities, such as health-care condition, quality and quantity of educational institution, have improved considerably thanks to the mayor’s great contribution. All of these elements added together seem out weigh the environmental problems when residents measure what are more significant for choosing a mayor. Therefore, before the author examine above facets of Frank Braun(FB)’s work, his/her conclusion is peremptoriness.

Even if the environment is the main matter which can determine citizens choice, the author provides no concrete evidence to prove FB do not protect environment. As it mentioned, more factories caused the increase of air pollution level, while, this do not mean the mayor did not employ some measures to protect the environment. Actually, the environmental problems is inevitab after invited more factories, and maybe without the mayor’s work, the air pollution would be more serious. What’s more,  identities of more 25 percent patients with respiratory illnesses needed to be examined. Maybe they are employees in those new factories, and their jobs acquired them to access some harmful industrial gas, their illness are caused by their work rather than city’s air. Thus, these two examples provided by the author are less solid to prove his/her conclusion.

Granted that FB does not safeguard local environment perfectly, whether Ann Green (AG) can do this work is open to question. In the argument, the author fails to mention any evidence which can prove AG can deal the environmental problem properly. Without any real plan and measure toward the air pollution and comprehensive analysis of feasibility of these plans and measures, how could the author persuade residents to believe AG can do a better job than FB? If AG just closing these factories and releasing the air pollution at the worth of stopping the economic development, can residents agree with him/her?

In sum, this argument has a sound starting point, after all the author is caring about the environment of Clearview. Whereas, before he/she reach the conclusion, more evidence are needed, which can prove FB’s decisions do harm the environment and AG does have concrete methods to improve the environmental condition. In addition, AG’s whole development plan about Clearview should be explained clearly to residents if the author wants his/her proposal be more dependable and believable.

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

呃 同主题第十一期是 ARGUMENT9 的说...
十三期是7

贝拉拉狂想UID: 2649512

呃。。不好意思。。

ddcmj519UID: 176326

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."

个人段落建议
个人段内建议

咳咳，还是啰嗦句，以下修改仅个人意见。欢迎跟帖批判&讨论~

Although this argument is established upon a sound starting point, hardly could the author reach his/her final conclusion since series irrational inferences undermine it. The author ignores some alternative possibilities, and provides several unconvincing evidences which make his/her proposal unbelievable.
这咋回事儿= =
模板气息也太浓厚了吧。。浓厚到根本木有实质性内容。参见66的帖子。https://bbs.gter.net/thread-920961-1-1.html
这样的内容，放到哪一篇ARGU的开头都可以，也就意味着。你这篇放到哪儿都没有实际意义！这样的文字，在我看来就是废话。完全不值得花考场时间在这上面。个人比较喜欢在开头段把原文逻辑链及相关内容简述，在后面提及的时候就不用花大量时间在重复题目上，而把注意力集中在攻击上。当然你也可以找到自己适合的风格，at least，这样无内容的开头相当的weak！

The author first needs to clarify whether the environmental situation is the decisive factor considered by Clearview’s residents when they vote on their mayoral. It is unreason that negate a mayor only because his/her do not protect environment so well. The author overlooks, or chose to ignore other alternative possibilities which influence citizens’ decision when they chose their mayor. Such as, whether the economic level increased since the mayor has taken office; how many new employment opportunities supplies to citizens because the mayor’s work; whether infrastructure facilities, such as health-care condition, quality and quantity of educational institution, have improved considerably thanks to the mayor’s great contribution.这句话很不符合常理。。选举的时候谁知道他议员的时候政绩？那个时候的政绩，要算。。也不能算他一个人的吧。除非这个人之前是啥市长之类的first chair 这事儿还说的合理，更多的时候参选的时候是考虑他们将来的政策从而吸引民众支持率。 All of these elements added together seem out weigh the environmental problems when residents measure what are more significant for choosing a mayor.Therefore, before the author examine above facets of Frank Braun(FB)’s work,这个是两个人的战争。。怎么能只详细考虑一个人的呢？同样，你上面的东西如果是从这句话看的话也是只考虑了FB的问题。而AG呢？是否在这段也稍微提及一下比如组织成员的参政能力之类的？这样两方都考虑了方显得全面~ his/her conclusion is peremptoriness.
由于之前没有复述内容，导致这里开头开始复述。本来上一段末尾的的指出错误是很好的。接下来理应接着分析每个错具体啥问题咯，结果，长长的一段内容复制使文章的衔接性大大降低！

Even if the environment is the main matter 不合适 factor？ which can determine citizens choice,这句话也让步的太过头了。。过的都不实际了。。怎么可能因为一个因素就定胜负。。就像这次Mc和OB，并不只是因为一个战争观点不同而导致的结果吧。。所以我觉得，合理的让步应该是   就算E确实占了比较重要的因素 the author provides no concrete evidence to prove FB do not protect environment.题意理解错误。题意的意思是说那些个工厂，呼吸疾病就是污染引起的。所以这里不是么有提供证据，而是错误的联系了因果。 As it mentioned, more factories caused the increase of air pollution level, while, this do not mean the mayor did not employ some measures to protect the environment. Actually, the environmental problems is inevitab after invited more factories, and maybe without the mayor’s work, 我终于理解你之前那段为什么这么写了。。注意审题，题目说的是a mumber of city council。。 the air pollution would be more serious why，details is needed.比如实施了什么环保措施，或者下令限制工厂排污。这里就是所谓的strong，1是strong在他因的个数上，2是strong在他因的真是&detail上。我个人的理解是就算给出很多他因，也必然要使每一个他因能让看官一眼就看出个所以然来，而不是说他可能怎么样。. What’s more,  identities of more 25 percent patients with respiratory illnesses needed to be examined这句话表意不完整. Maybe they are employees in those new factories, and their jobs acquired them to access some harmful industrial gas, their illness are caused by their work rather than city’s air. 这个他因很weak啊。。而且人家说的是整个地区的。。大可以说是什么沙尘暴啊，或者比如H1N1，再或者非典。。呼吸疾病除了空气污染还可以是病毒性的嘛。。Thus, these two examples provided by the author are less solid to prove his/her conclusion.

进入下一段之前我先理一下你的写作思路
（先认为F是前市长了= =这个比较要命。注意原题：a member of the Clearview town council,）
F之前的综合政绩不明 ---  F 环境类的政绩不明    \
                                                                }结论不成立
                 A 环境类执政能力不明&与F对比不明/

这样一来你就忽视了A的综合执政能力。而且还导致在对比两个人在环境类的执政能力上的陈述比较雷同，思路乍一看也不是很清晰的感觉。
Granted that FB does not safeguard local environment perfectly, whether Ann Green (AG) can do this work is open to question. In the argument, the author fails to mention any evidence which can prove AG can deal the environmental problem properly. Without any real plan and measure toward the air pollution and comprehensive analysis of feasibility of these plans and measures, how could the author persuade residents to believe AG can do a better job than FB?事实上我觉得author是认为F没有保护环境的心，而A保护意识很好，所以选所以这里可能还可以再展开说下 If AG just closing these factories and releasing the air pollution at the worth of stopping the economic development, can residents agree with him/her?这个assumption太没依据了吧= = 建议删之           这段你就给了2句分析还有一句是自己认为的A的政策，对这个分析之所以不能深入，我个人认为可以合并body1，作为candidate参政能力的body。第二段可以再加上A这边的环境背景分析成为candidate背景的body。这样，虽然只有两段。但是sufficient的程度&信息密度&行文构架大大大于你现在这样3段的分析。（当然，我这个只是针对你这篇文章的段落分析，其他还需要具体情况具体分析~）     另外关于三段body还是两段body的问题，嗯，范文1，就只有2段body——6分。足以证明段落怎么分，不是问题。关键是在段落内部所表达的思想的广度。

In sum, this argument has a sound starting point,这句放这儿好奇怪。。after all the author is caring about the environment of Clearview. Whereas, before he/she reach the conclusion, more evidence are needed, which can prove FB’s decisions do harm the environment and AG does have concrete methods to improve the environmental condition. In addition, AG’s whole development plan about Clearview should be explained clearly to residents if the author wants his/her proposal be more dependable and believable.

结尾没啥大问题。
另外his/her 这个太多了点啦。。实在不行the代替掉吧。。当然。。个人意见个人意见~
：）
加油~