ARGIMENT27 竞选和环保， 高频！

MIMOSARLUID: 2112846

29When Ida McAllister ran for mayor of Lake City four years ago, she failed to win even 30 percent of the vote. But since then, McAllister has made public her commitment to environmental causes. She would be wise, therefore, to announce her intention to close all Lake City parks to automobile traffic, thus following the example of the former mayor of Plainsville, Alecia Yu . On the recommendation of a small group of concerned citizens, Mayor Yu prohibited automobile traffic in all Plainsville parks, and therefore was credited with solving the pollution problem and improving the quality of life in Plainsville. This action would have great appeal to the citizens of Lake City, most of whom participate in the community's recycling program, and would guarantee McAllister's success in her current quest to be Lake City's new mayor.

Starting from the assumption that the reason why Ida Mcallister (IM) failed in last election for mayor in Lake City was lacking her commitment of environmental protecting, the author points that this time IM makes her commitment to forbid park in all Lake City parks. Then the author assumes that because the same measure got success in Plainsville by their mayor Yu, the measure will be sustained by the public in Lake City. Therefore, the author claims that the IM will be success in her election to be Lake City's new mayor. Though the statement is well-presented, but further reflection reveals that it suffers from several logic flaws.

To begin with, the argument rests on an assumption that the reasons why IM failed in last evolution was only because she did not commit to protect environment. Obviously, except protecting environment, there still are other aspects one major should be responsible for, such as accelerating the growth of economy, making the society more security, improving the public service for public etc. Without ruling out other factors may induce the failure of IM in last election, we cannot be convinced that the failure to commit to protect environment is the real reason why IM lost in last election.

Furthermore, the argument commits a fallacy of false analogy that the IM could gain the success by using the same measure to forbid park in all parks as the mayor of Plainsville did. The arguer has not given us any evidence to prove that because such measure the mayor Yu had gained the success in his election. In addition, being different city and different situation it is suspicious for us to believe that the same measure could make success in Lake City. Maybe the pollution problems are not difficult in Lake City. Maybe most of citizens do not want to sustain the measure because it is inconvenience for them to arrive in parks without cars. Without ruling out such possibility, it renders the effects of commitment suspicious to us.

Last but not the least, though most of citizens of Lake City participate in the recycling program, it does not indicate that they did so to protect the environment. May be it is because of the laws in Lake City, or may be it is because recycling could help them save money. Even if all they want to protect environment, it does not indicate that they are agree with the measures proposed by IM ,except the automobiles' pollution, there still are other factors could affect environment such as the pollution from industry. Maybe the local people pay more attention to that problem. Even if they agree with the commitment, it does not indicate that the citizens will vote for IM as their mayor, maybe another elector is more attractive to them. After all, protecting environment is only one aspect of responsibility for major.
  
In sum, the statement given is not well reasoned. Before we accept that IM could be success in her current quest to be new mayor in Lake City, more work is need by finding out the real reason why IM lost in last vote.  Besides, the argument could be further improved by evaluating all other possible alternations.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-9 at 23:47 ]