0910G[North America Flying]Argument7 by fake

fake2009UID: 2631119

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：374+55
用时：00:30:00
日期：2009-7-15 10:30:33

The author of the letter make a suggestion to vote for Ann Green (AG) instead of Frank Braun (FB), however, there exists several fallacy in his argument: 1) unaccredited fact that the members of town council are not protecting environment; 2) wrong assumption that the council members behavior will actually cause the pollution; 3) the weak effectiveness of the provided evidence; 4) groundless deduction that the problem will be solved if AG is in power.

Firstly, the argument didn't provide the evidence to reach a conclusion that the council members are not protecting the environment. Perhaps, personally they are environment protector, they prevent themselves to conduct pollution rather than cause pollution, while they cannot reach an agreement of environment-friendly policy. If he thinks the following examples effectively prove their ignorance in environment protection, he makes the wrong assumption that the council members' behavior will directly cause the pollution.

An interesting example I want to cite is that the way of cuisine will also cause air pollution. A survey provided statistics in the air pollution level in nations with different traditional way of cuisine. Among these, Chinese cuisine, which is full of fry, is releasing waste gas during cooking. It suffers worse air pollution.

Secondly, the effectiveness or authenticity of the provided examples is doubtable. The number of factories has doubled, but not the number of factories which conduct pollution has doubled. Air pollution levels have increased, in that it didn't mention the specific statistics or other types of pollution. The more occurred respiratory illness in hospital didn't necessarily only caused by air pollution, in that personal poor hygiene condition or the outbreak of influenza will also cause this kind of disease. There's also possibility that the awareness of the people who care about their health condition is raising now. People, who were not going to hospital, now are going there with high frequency, which also contributes to more illness treatments currently.

Finally, the arguer makes the groundless deduction that if we elect AG, the environmental problems will be solved. However, in my opinion, whether the environmental problems can be solved doesn't depend on who will be in power, but the policy one adopts, or the attitude one holds. If AG is elected, and he adopts the pollute-first-and-solve-later policy, the environmental issue can not be solved.

In sum, we should adopt scientific and proper criteria when we judge AG and FB. And the examples cited needs more authentic statistics to support them, thus the argument can assure that the pollution situation is actually severe and urgently need to be solved.

421899282UID: 2595732

攻击点
1、环境污染和成员的工作不一定有直接关系。
   另举烹饪中的污染
2、论述证据的不充分：工厂可能不污染；其他污染；疾病的起因多样；人们的救治观念改变。
3、FB的失败，不能证明AG就会成功

其中烹饪的例子，我觉得可以放到第二段。
另外，我觉得你忽略了两个团体名字上的信息，Good Earth Coalition应该是一个强烈支持环境保护的团体，Clearview town council不晓得是什么，council好像是指地方政府，委员会啊什么的。我觉得还可以从这方面进一步说一下。