arguement7 重写= so what=第一次作业 by gabyw

gabywUID: 2633725

The editorial recommends that Clearview residents vote for Ann Green instead of Frank Braun, because Ann is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, and Frank is a member of city –council. To support this recommendation the editorial cites a significant increase during the last year in the number of Clearview factories and in the number of Clearview hospital patients treated for respiratory illness. On the bias
of this evidence the author infers that the current council members are not protecting the city’s environment and that electing Green will solve the city’s environmental
problems. This argument is logically flawed in several critical respects.

To begin with, the argument unfairly assumes that last year’s increase in the number of factories was due to the city council’s decisions-rather than
to some other phenomenon—and that this increase pose environmental problems for Clearview. The editorial provides no evidence to substantiate these assumptions. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that the council actually opposed the increasebut lacked adequate authority to prevent it, or that the new factories do not harm Clearview environment. The argument also assumes unfairly that last year’s increase in the number of patients reporting respiratory problems indicates worsening environmental problems in Clearview. Perhaps the actually incidence of such health problems has not increase, the reported increase is due to increasing awareness among Clearview residents of respiratory illness. Even if the increase of respiratory problems has in fact increased, the increase might be due to influx of people with pre-existing such problems, or to more effective cigarette marketing. Since the editorial fails to rule out these and other possible explanations for the increase, i can not accept any conclusions about Clearview’s environment—let alone about who voters should elect to city council—based on last year’s hospital records.

Even if the two cited increases to indicate a worsening of Clearview’s environment due to the city council’s decisions, the argument rests on the further assumption that Braun was a factor in those decisions. But, since the editorial provides no evidences to substantiate this assumption it is equally possible that Braun actually opposed the decisions that were responsible for these increase. Thus, without better evidence that Braun contributed to key decisions adversely effecting Clearview’s environment, the editorial remains unconvincing.

Finally, even if Green would in fact be more effective than Braun in solving Clearview’s environment problems, the authors provides no firm evident that electing Green is necessary to solve those problems, or that electing Green would suffice. Perhaps another candidate, or another course of action, would be more effective. Even if Green does everything in herpower as city-council member to solve these problems, perhaps additional measures—such as replacing other council members, and state legislators, or even the state’s governor—would also be required in order to achieve Clearview’s environmental objectives.



In conclusion, the editorial’s author can not justify his or her voting recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence provided in the editorial. To better assess the argument I would need to know the scope of the city council’s authority respecting environmental decisions. I would also need to know Braun’s voting record on environmental issues, Green’s experience and position on those issues, and the voters other choice—besides