六人行小组7.30作业argument 112

thisisyishuUID: 2586842

argue112.

The speaker concludes that the plan to filling in 900 cares of the bay to build new runways should be adopted. To support the conclusion, the speaker cites that fact that Franklin Airport, which is on a bay, should reduce the flight delays; and the only solution to increase capacity is to build new runways on reclaimed land. The speaker also pointed out that the wetland restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay’s environment will actually be helped rather than hurt. Although The Bay Coalition organization objects that filling in the bay will disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife. 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. The argument is problematic in several critical respects.

First of all, the argument depends on the new runways can reduce the flight delays. It is possible that, the notorious flight is result of inefficiency work of the airport staff. Or perhaps the weather condition in this area is not suitable for aircraft taking off and landing. If true, this fact would serve to refute the speaker’s assertion that it is correct decision to build new runway. Even if building the new run way could effectively solving the flight delay problem, there is no evidence to prove filling in 900 acres of the bay is the only solution to obtain project site . Without considering and ruling out alternative solutions, the argument the only solution to increase capacity is to build new runways on reclaimed is indefensible.

In addition, the argument indicates that the wetlands restoration part of the plan ensures that the bay's environment will actually be helped rather than hurt. To support this idea, the speaker cites 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. However, the speaker fails to supply any detail of the restoration plan, and the result of the restoration is unpredictable. In this case, it is possible that the restoration of the previously damaged bay have nothing to do with the environment of the bay which will be filled for new runway, and the bay tidal patterns will be disrupted and wildlife would be hurt.
Without the detailed and restoration plan and convincing prospect of the restoration result, the speaker cannot ensure us that the new runway plan should be accept.

In sum, the conclusion that the plan to reduce flight delay by filling the bay and building new runways in unconvincing. To strength the argument, the speaker must also cites the evidence that filling the bay to build new runway is the only solution. More over, the detailed evidence to ensure the project would help rather than hurt the bay's environment .