Arguement112 =美丽G程小组=小组第一次作业 by 曦范

曦范UID: 2724845

TOPIC: ARGUMENT112 - The following proposal was raised at a meeting of the Franklin City Council.

"Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, is notorious for flight delays. The airport management wants to build new runways to increase capacity but can only do so by filling in 900 acres of the bay. The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. But the airport says that if it is permitted to build its new runways, it will fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization. This plan should be adopted, for it is necessary to reduce the flight delays, and the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt."

Based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the author draws the conclusion that the plan about filling the bay to build the new runways for the airport should be adopted. In order to make this plan more realistic, the company offered the promise to reconstruct the wetland on purpose to fix up the bay he had destroyed. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some substantial concerns to make the argument more acceptable. From the logical perspective, the argument suffers from three logical flaws

The argument suffers from a threshold problem which is basic and obviously wrong. The author just claims that building new runways to increase capacity can reduce the flight delays. This claim seems to have made a little sense, but from a further analogy we can find out that there is no clear connection between the problem of delays and the new runways. Flight delays canbe caused by a myriad
of other factors, such as weather problems, the amount of passengers using the airport, or even the economy development of the area. To be specific, without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot conclude that Franklin Airport can solve the delay problem only by filling the bay to build the new runways.

Even assuming the delays canbe solved by the build of runways, the airport will donate money to the restoration of wetland, the environment problem will be serious rather than being helped. Because the Bay Coalition organization advocate the filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife, while the restoration of the wetlands might not fix the problems like that. Since the wetland was destroyed by industrialization, I propose the restoration may not save the wildlife and its tidal patterns.

Last but not least, we have make sure that after the restoration of the wetland, weather the industry in that area will decrease lot.Because since the area has sacrifice the wetland for industry previously, the economy must have increased, otherwise, we have to make sure that there won't be a terrible falldown of the economy production before the restoration of the wetland. Moreover, we have reason to doubt weather the airport company will have enough money to fund the restoration after it filling the bay and build the new runnway, in addition, it's income seems not well because of the delay problems.

To sum up, this argument fails to substantiate its claim about the adoption of the plan of reconstruction of the airport, because the evidence cited in the analysis doeskin lend strong support to what arguer maintain. To make the argument more conceving, the author would have to provide more information with regard to the more detailed condition about the environment and the economy of Franklin.If the argument had include the given factors discussed above, it would have more through and logically acceptable.