09AW同期写作第十三期argument7 by 小小amy

小小amyUID: 2541111

It calls people to vote A as F was one of the member in the town council which didn’t protect the environment. The proposal that people should vote for A is quiet unconvincing and hasty generalization.

Should the disaster-like environment in last years really blame on the town council? Does the town council really don’t’ care about the getting worse pollution? The doubled factories, increased level air pollution and more patients with respiratory illness sound bad. But the author forgets to concern about relative causes may leaded to them and prove they are relative to each other. The increasing amount of factory may due to the development of economic and this newly increased factory may not be pollution type. Air pollution can be raised by the emission of increasing vehicle total amount or the bad air could be brought by wind from other places while factories are doing well on control their discharge of air. What’s more, the increasing members of respiratory illnesses have no direct connection to the bad air level in the statement above which may be led by epidemic among people. All three phenomenons could not be explained only by a bad town council who don’t care about it. Maybe they do.

Even if it was the council failed to protect environment, it is unfair to eliminate F for him being a member of the town council. Failure on protecting the environment belongs to the whole council which doesn’t indicate F hold no reservation to protect the environment in the past years. There is totally a possibility that he calls for actions on environment but most others members don’t.

In this case, it is unfair to elect A only because of his being a member of G E C and people count on him to solve the environmental problems. There is not proof that A will solve and is good at solving environmental issues. The background of him in the GEC may be only a cover that he has personal attempts to prevent the environment from getting worse. What’s more, being a mayor requires more than abilities than attempting to get down to the environmental problems. Capabilities in other aspects, good at dealing with problems and excellent judge ability ect. are essentially needed. what's more, the passage couldn't ruler out that F may have all-round gifties for this mayor champain.

In conclusion, the unrelated negative factors in the statement could not convince the reader to vote for A but ignore F as a mayor candidate. The speaker should dig more persuasive supporting proves.

happy牧羊UID: 2662770

It（代词不应该在开头就出现，没有指代对象） calls people to vote A as F was one of the member in the town council which didn’t protect the environment.（这句话的语法似乎有点问题，建议自己研究一下） The proposal that people should vote for A is quiet unconvincing and hasty generalization. （开头段过于简短了，对于argument来说，开头段除了要指出作者有逻辑错误之外，还要简单得告诉大家是哪些主要得逻辑错误导致作者得出荒谬得结论）

Should the disaster-like environment in last years really blame on the town council? Does the town council really don’t  care about the getting worse pollution? （这两句哪一个是TS？最好是合并成一句话来些，这样表意清晰一些～～）The doubled factories, increased level air pollution and more patients with respiratory illness sound bad. But the author forgets to concern about relative causes（这个是指谁和谁的关系？） may leaded to them and prove they are relative to each other. （The increasing amount of factory may due to the development of economic and this newly increased factory may not be pollution type. Air pollution can be raised by the emission of increasing vehicle total amount or the bad air could be brought by wind from other places while factories are doing well on control their discharge of air. What’s more, the increasing members of respiratory illnesses have no direct connection to the bad air level in the statement above which may be led by epidemic among people. All three phenomenons could not be explained only by a bad town council who don’t care about it. Maybe they do.（这段得关系有点混乱，其实在这一段里面你要表达得意思有2层，首先是council不一定要对doubled factories。然后找他因。接着是，即便要对doubled factories 负责，也不代表文中所说到得空气污染上升以及呼吸道病人上身是factories 带来的，针对这两个现象再找他因；分开两个层次说，好写，也让读者易懂）

Even if it was the council failed to protect environment, it is unfair to eliminate F for （him可删掉） being a member of the town council. Failure on protecting the environment belongs to the whole council which doesn’t indicate F hold no reservation to protect the environment in the past years. There is totally（后面应该加形容词，possible） a possibility that he calls for actions on environment but most others members don’t. （这段意思对了，语言的表达需要进一步）

In this case, it is unfair to elect A only because of his（可删除）being a member of G E C and people count on him to solve the environmental problems. There is not（no） proof that A will solve and is good at solving environmental issues. The background of him in the GEC may be only a cover that he has personal attempts to prevent the environment from getting worse. What’s more, being a mayor requires more than abilities than attempting to get down to the environmental problems. Capabilities in other aspects, good at dealing with problems and excellent judge ability ect.（这个貌似不能这样用耶）are essentially needed. What’s more, the passage couldn't ruler out that F may have all-round gifties for this mayor champion.（语言问题比较多）

In conclusion, the unrelated negative factors（文章中的论据不能说是负面的吧，说成是不充分的是不是更恰当） in the statement could not convince the reader to vote for A but ignore F as a mayor candidate.（not。。but。。的转折强调句型似乎不太适合在这里使用） The speaker should dig（个人觉得挖掘信息不是特别合适，个人意见仅供参考） more persuasive supporting proves.

语言表达上需要下功夫了哦～～其实有时候并不一定要用一些难词或者是偏词，范文里面也都用的少～～ 重要的是要精准！
逻辑思维上，大的框架是对的，不过在一些具体的转折，衔接上还是需要多学习一下

个人也非大牛牛，如有不当住处，请见谅～～希望能帮助你进步～～

小小amyUID: 2541111

我用的都是6级内认识的词汇，很浅显的。。。逻辑转接是有问题，谢谢指出。
The statement calls people to vote A, a G E C member, not F who was one of the members in the town council which didn’t protect the environment. The reasoning is the environment in this town was going bad for the old town council’s ignorance and now it need a new mayor who cares about environment problems. The proposal that people should vote for A is quiet unconvincing and hasty generalization.

Should the disaster-like environment in last years really blame on the town council not care about the getting worse pollution? The doubled factories, increased level air pollution and more patients with respiratory illness sound bad. But the author forgets to concern about relative causes on these three problems may be something else, not the town council who should be directly responsible to their so-called false. All three phenomenons could not be explained only by a bad town council who don’t care about it. Maybe they do. The increasing amount of factory may due to the development of economic and this newly increased factory may not be pollution type. Air pollution can be raised by the emission of increasing vehicle total amount or the bad air could be brought by wind from other places while factories are doing well on control their discharge of air. What’s more, the increasing members of respiratory illnesses have no direct connection to the bad air level in the speaker’s statement which may be led by epidemic among people.

Even if it was the council failed to protect environment, it is unfair to eliminate F for being a member of the town council. Failure on protecting the environment belongs to the whole council which doesn’t indicate F holds no attempt to protect the environment in the past years. There is totally a possibility that he calls for actions on environment but most others members don’t.

In this case, it is unfair to elect A only because of being a member of G E C and then people count on him to solve the environmental problems. There is no proof that A will solve and is good at solving environmental issues. The background of him in the GEC may be merely an appearance that he has personal attempts to prevent the environment from getting worse. What’s more, being a mayor requires more than abilities than attempting to get down to the environmental problems. Capabilities in other aspects are essentially needed, for instance, good at dealing with various problems, nice skills to communicate with all kind of people and excellent judge ability and so forth. What’s more, the passage couldn't ruler out that his opponent F may have all-round gifts for this mayor champion.

In conclusion, the unrelated in sufficient factors in the statement could not convince the reader to vote for A but ignore F as a mayor candidate. The speaker should provide more information of both candidates in which persuasive supporting proves A is the right one.