ARGUMENT7 选举 留连接必回

咯噔UID: 2114564

7。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."
In this argument the author conclude that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green in the next mayoral election for the current members are not protecting environment. To support this conclusion, the speaker cites that the number of factories has doubled , air pollution level has increased and the number of patients has increased in hospital. these evidence reveals several critical problems which altogether serve to undermine the speaker’s argument.

First of all, the author failed to establish a causal relationship between the increase of the number of patients and of the pollution environment and the doubling of the number of factories. The observed phenomenon, actually, says little more than these 2 events are synchronic to each other and that is all. Experience tell us that these factories may all be non-pollution. In addition, the increased patients with respiratory may result from severe smoking and the higher pollution level may be caused by unexpected fad of buying cars. Some other natural environmental factors may also play a role in these aftermath. Unless the author rule out other possible reasons, I can’t acceptthe author’s spectious conclusion.

Second, assuming that air pollution lead to all these effects, the conclusion is weakened by another problem that the arguer assumes that the town council’s concern is the only factor that plays a part, if not the most significant, in the protection of environment. Consider, for example, the council has implemented some decrees about the establishment of factories that may pollute air, but high profit still attracted more and more factories to come. Or perhaps the council’s methods is changing the situation better, but as a natal policy its efficiency is too slight too see. If so, this fact would counterproduce the conclusion’s relevance in solving this problem.

Third, even the author can substantiate all of his proof that the environment deteriorated, the assertion may still remain invalid and misleading. first, the evident of the efficiency of electing Ann Green to protect the environment is absent, although he/she is a member of the Good Earth  Coalition. There is no certainty that he really concerns about the environment, or he has some ideal about how to protect it. Second, the necessity of obsoletion of the current council is unseen. we now have varies ways to send our pepitions to the government, and after all, the standard to judge a government’s value should not only contain environment.

In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is not well founded. Before I can accept it, the arguer must supply clear evidence that (1) the environment has really been ruined, (2) the government hasn’t paid enough attention to it, and (3)Ann Green is competent for this position.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-23 at 14:34 ]