Argument7 Emulate作文小组 补交作业

AK_小儿UID: 2784558

TOPIC: ARGUMENT7 - 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."

The speaker suggests residents of Clearview to vote for Ann Green, a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview town council so that the environmental problems of Clearview will be undoubtedly solved. To substantiate the assertion he cites the truth of increasing numbers of factories in Clearview and the patients with respiratory illnesses, which seems to show an environmental deterioration. While as far as I concerned, it was illogically reasoned for the reasons below.

To begin with, the speaker failed to prove the fact of increasing numbers of factory and patients with respiratory illnesses to be the sign of environmental deterioration. No evidence shows that these factories will do harm to environment. Perhaps these factories behave strictly to lower the pollution. While more respiratory illnesses may be caused by other problems, changeable weather or popularity of tobacco, instead of environment problems. Even though the environment of Clearview deteriorated, the speaker have no evidence to demonstrate that it's resulted by the behaviors of Clearview town council's members. Perhaps they were more likely to disagree with it but have no power to stop it.

Secondly, even if it is the Clearview town council’s members who did the wrong decision which leads to this series of environment problems, it doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t do the right decisions in the following years. Simultaneously, no evidence shows that Ann Green is a fan of protecting environment, and she even hasn’t been proved to have come up with a better solution to these problems than Frank Braun, then how could speaker be so sure that her being elected will solve the environment problems. Moreover, other candidates may be more proper to be a mayor to settle the environmental problems.

Finally, whether a candidate can lead resident to protect environment is not the most critical standard for a mayor’s electing even though it is very important. Ann Green may do better than Frank Braun, it doesn’t indicate that she will be better in other aspects either, such as the development of economics and education, which may be correlated with a city’s development as well. Maybe Ann Green has little idea about economics’ development and didn’t pay enough attention to children’s education and growing. Then we must consider more to vote a mayor.

In sum, the speaker’s conclusion is not well reasoned. To bolster the assertion, he should cite more evidences to show that the environment was really worse and prove that these problems were a consequence of Frank Braun’s decisions. He also should give more fact indicating that Ann Green got a better plan to solve the environment problems and will continuing protect it. Besides, he should prove that Ann Green do better than Frank Braun and other candidates in other more aspects including environment protection.(word 557)

withumUID: 2972989

学习、努力学习