欢迎猛拍~Argument112【六人行小组7.30】by xyjprc

xyjprcUID: 2412778

嗯，感谢帮我改作文的同学~这一篇套用了不少北美范文的第一个模板，所以写起来相对之前顺手一些~


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."

WORDS: 512
TIME: 00:57:35
DATE: 8/1/2010 10:49:02 PM

Noting the plan that the flight delays could be reduced by filling in 900 acres of the bay to build new runways, the speaker argues that this plan should be adopted and the restoration of wetlands would help the bay's environment. However, the speaker's argument relies on a series of unproven assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the argument assumes that flight delays in Franklin Airport are caused by the insufficiency of runways. Yet, the mere fact that Franklin Airport is notorious for flight delays hardly suffices to infer the insufficiency of runways. Without better evidence that it is always the congestion of flights in Franklin Airport that hampers the on-time taking off of planes from other airports towards Franklin Airport, it is just likely that flight delays are caused by bad weather condition. Especially that Franklin Airport is on a bay, it is very possible that thick fog usually occurs in Franklin and that makes landing and taking-off impossible. For that matter, the plan of building new runways to reduce the flight delays would help little and is more likely to waste money.

Even assuming that building new runways could reduce the flight delays, the promise that the airport would fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands is obscure. Before the airport has already made the restoration, how can anyone assure that the airport would realize its promise? Even if it is sure to fund the restoration of wetlands, we still have no idea that how in detail the fund will be given and applied. Before these matters are made clear, the airport's promise could not serve as a reason for its disrupting tidal patterns and harming wildlife.

Finally, even assuming that the airport is sure to fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization, the bay's environment would not necessarily be benefited. On one hand, the restoration of a larger 100 acres proves nothing that the environment would be benefited. The environment differs from place to place, and the restoration of one place would not necessarily compensate the damage in another place. It is entirely possible that the 900 acres of the bay to be filled is the only habitat of endangered species, and the devastation of their home could directly make them distinguish, which can never be compensated by restoring other wetlands. On the other, the restoration of wetlands usually takes tens of years, and in this blank time the actual effective area of wetland is reduced, and the environment is sure to suffer. In short, the plan is more likely to disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife, rather than help the environment.


In sum, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the flight delays are caused by the insufficiency of runways in Franklin Airport. It could be further improved by ruling out alternatives that the environment could possibly be hurt rather than helped.

killthegUID: 2862114

Noting the plan that the flight delays could be reduced by filling in 900 acres of the bay to build new runways, the speaker argues that this plan should be adopted and the restoration of wetlands would help the bay's environment. However, the speaker's argument relies on a series of unproven assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the argument assumes that flight delays in Franklin Airport are caused by the insufficiency of runways. Yet, the mere fact that Franklin Airport is notorious for flight delays hardly suffices to infer the insufficiency of runways. Without better evidence that it is always the congestion of flights in Franklin Airport that hampers the on-time taking off of planes from other airports towards Franklin Airport, it is just likely that flight delays are caused by bad weather condition. Especially that Franklin Airport is on a bay, it is very possible that thick fog usually occurs in Franklin and that makes landing and taking-off impossible. For that matter, the plan of building new runways to reduce the flight delays would help little and is more likely to waste money.【攻击点：飞机晚点可能不是缺少跑道，可能是天气原因】

Even assuming that building new runways could reduce the flight delays, the promise that the airport would fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands is obscure. Before the airport has already made the restoration, how can anyone assure that the airport would realize its promise?【飞机场毁约的可能性不大吧。。。】 Even if it is sure to fund the restoration of wetlands, we still have no idea that how in detail the fund will be given and applied. Before these matters are made clear, the airport's promise could not serve as a reason for its disrupting tidal patterns and harming wildlife.【这个攻击点有点小，不是很主要吧】

Finally, even assuming that the airport is sure to fund the restoration of 1,000 acres of wetlands in areas of the bay that have previously been damaged by industrialization, the bay's environment would not necessarily be benefited. On one hand, the restoration of a larger 100 acres proves nothing that the environment would be benefited. The environment differs from place to place, and the restoration of one place would not necessarily compensate the damage in another place. It is entirely possible that the 900 acres of the bay to be filled is the only habitat of endangered species, and the devastation of their home could directly make them distinguish, which can never be compensated by restoring other wetlands. On the other, the restoration of wetlands usually takes tens of years, and in this blank time the actual effective area of wetland is reduced, and the environment is sure to suffer. In short, the plan is more likely to disrupt tidal patterns and harm wildlife, rather than help the environment. 【攻击点：即使修复湿地，也不一定带来好处】


In sum, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the flight delays are caused by the insufficiency of runways in Franklin Airport. It could be further improved by ruling out alternatives that the environment could possibly be hurt rather than helped.
【这篇A本身攻击点基本没错，问题不大】