Argument7 【☆09GRE作文冲刺组】swbai2月28日作文

swbaiUID: 2600532

题目：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."
字数：418          用时：0:30:00          日期：2009-2-28
In this letter the writer recommends electing Ann Green can slove the environmental problems. To support this recommendation, the writer cites the following facts about Ann Green: (1) she is a member of Good Earth Coaliltion; (2) her opponent Frank Braun is from council Clearview and in past years factories has doubled and pollution has increased. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support of the recommendation.

First, Ann Green is a member of Good Earth Coalition (GEC) does not necessarily indicate that she will do better than Frank Braun in dealing with environmental problems. The mayor's duty is different from protector of the environment. Perhaps she can do just as any other mayor do, which is in any method to develop the local economy, dispite of protect the environment. Perhaps through Ann is a member of GEC, she do not want to protect the environment at all, and all she did in there is just to handle ordinary things of the stuff. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for Ann is a member of GEC, the author cannot convince me on the basis of them that Ann is going to protect the environment.

Secondly, even if Ann is will to protect the environment, the author asserts further that her opponent Frank Braun will not do well in protecting the environment. Yet the letter contains no evidence to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that Frank have done a lot of things to protect the environment, yet the council rejected the suggestion again and again. Or perhaps Clearview have contributed a lot to make better environment, so the pollution of every factory drops in large amount, yet the whole amount of pollution still arises. Besides, the only 25 percent of patients compared with the doubled number of factories showed the council's intention to environment. In addition, it may be the effort that has been made to protect the environment.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumption that renders it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the author must provide clear evidence--perhaps by face to face interview--that Ann is willing to protect the environment, and she can do better than Frank Braun. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know whether Ann is going to protect the environment as the mayor. I would also need to know that why Frank Braun have not protected the environment at pervious years.

ratoUID: 2563435

In this letter the writer recommends electing Ann Green can slove（to solve） the environmental problems. To support this recommendation, the writer cites the following facts about Ann Green: (1) she is a member of Good Earth Coaliltion(Coalition); (2) her opponent Frank Braun is from council Clearview and in past years factories has doubled and pollution has increased. (her opponent Frank Braun is from council Clearview, meanwhile factories has doubled and pollution has increased in past years.)Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support of the recommendation.

First, Ann Green is a member of Good Earth Coalition (GEC) does not necessarily indicate that she will do better than Frank Braun in dealing with environmental problems. The mayor's duty is different from protector of the environment. Perhaps she can do just as any other mayor(s) do, which is in any method to(这个不懂耶,向你请教) develop the local economy, dispite of protect the environment(overlooking the protection of the environment,,despite拼错). Perhaps through （though）Ann is a member of GEC, she do not want to protect the environment at all, and all she did in there is just to handle ordinary things of the stuff. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons for Ann is a member of GEC, the author cannot convince me on the basis of them that Ann is going to protect the environment.

Secondly, even if Ann is will(willing) to protect the environment, the author asserts further that her opponent Frank Braun will not do well in protecting the environment. Yet the letter contains no evidence to support this assumption. Lacking such evidence it is equally possible that Frank have done a lot of things to protect the environment, yet the council rejected the suggestion again and again. Or perhaps Clearview have contributed a lot to make better environment, so the pollution of every factory drops in large amount, yet the whole amount of pollution still arises. Besides, the only 25 percent of patients compared with the doubled number of factories showed the council's intention to environment.(依然看不懂,囧) In addition, it may be the effort that has been made to protect the environment.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumption that renders it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the author must provide clear evidence--perhaps by face to face interview--that Ann is willing to protect the environment, and she can do better than Frank Braun. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know whether Ann is going to protect the environment as the mayor. I would also need to know that why Frank Braun have not protected the environment at pervious years.


你先用Word检查一下嘛，，有几个错误我都是用它找出来的咧