0910AW 同主题写作第十三期 ARGUMENT7 by 家家

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

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."

Grounding on Ann Green's specific position title and the enviornmental status quo in Clearview, the author argues that residents should vote for her in the next mayoral election. Although his argument seems reasonable and compelling at first glance, there is still more work needs to be done for the reasoning after profoundly consideration.

On the first step, the author false assumes that Ann Green owns strong capability of handling enviornmental problems and can definitely protects the city's surrounding better. Admittedly, Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, has more opportunities to osculate environmental problems and may have upper eco-awareness; however, attending such an organization cannot support consumingly her competence of solving difficulties of this kind. It is entirely possible that Ann participates a certain amount of environmental protection events, while, she always take part in the role of assistant or some restricted trifles those mean little to effective green work. The author doesn't offer any cogent evidences to support Ann Green's outstanding headships or illustrious efforts in the environmental area. Moreover, even though the Clearview town council pays lacking attention on the environmental matters, we cannot deduce Frank Braun lacks of capability to handle green target. It is irrational for the author to judge these two candidates' environmental quality simply based on separate organizatons.

In the next place, the author concludes the deterioration of environmental conditions quite hastily. Although during the past year the total amount of factories in Clearview has doubled, we can deduce in reason that if there is an attractive investment policy which newly published by the government then more investors choose Clearview as their factory addresses. The air pollution levels, which the author argues have increased, needs more investigating works; as the author mentions in his arguments, more factories are constructed in this area, if the level compares the increment speed is lower, (which means the number of factories doubled but the air pollution level didn't increase to that extent) we can even say that the control means of air pollution becomes more advanced. As well as the 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses, air pollution is not the unique underlying reason which may cause respiratory illnesses, smoking is also threatening people's respiratory health seriously. In short, the author shows several status quos, while he fails to show the connection between such status and the specific surrounding issues.

Last but not the least, even if Ann Green was an excellent environment protector, it is still leading insufficient credit to expect her better performance rather than Frank Braun. The author seems deliberately ignoring the other candidate's information which makes his conclusion quite biased. Furthermore, being an environmentalist is not the sufficient condition of a splendid mayor. For the sake of electing a better mayor, the residents need to consider circumspectly and integrate several different factors.

In sum, the author fails to consider the extra factors of the correct mayoral election exclude environmental problem, meanwhile, he doesn't show the convincing evidences to sustain Ann Green's obvious advantages. He undoubtedly needs to collect more information to support his argues, otherwise, his claims lead less cogent.

wobaobao519UID: 2605404

家家， 你的第二段里面说的是 Clearview's members are not protecting their environment quite hastily. 而我觉得文章里面指出的是说current council do no project the evironment 而不是说的是人们不关心， 说的是政府不关心~~~

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊，看错题了！！！！！！！！！！！！这个这个。。。咳咳。。。偶匿。。。

【小小声】改回来了。。。囧

贝拉拉狂想UID: 2649512

红色： 有问题
紫色：我的建议
粉色： 赞！

Grounding on Ann Green's specific position title and the enviornmental status quo in Clearview（who told you? 题目仅仅介绍了ann 的背景，并没有说我就是因为这个才推荐他的耶~谨防自我假设，a有很多陷阱）, the author argues that residents should vote for her（her/him 没有人告诉你男的就不能叫ann） in the next mayoral election. Although his argument seems reasonable and compelling at first glance, there is still more work needs to be done for the reasoning after profoundly consideration.
openning: 一共两句话： 第一句，是介绍背景。记住，不要在A的开头段落介绍背景。那个是rater已经知道了。
第二句: 套话， 这样的句子可以写，写在第一句，后面把这篇文章犯的错误简洁罗列，这样的开头是很好的。

On the first step, the author false assumes that Ann Green owns strong capability of handling enviornmental problems and can definitely protects the city's surrounding better. Admittedly, Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, has more opportunities to osculate（这个词能用在人和物之间么？） environmental problems and may have upper eco-awareness; however, attending such an organization cannot support consumingly（很怪） her competence of solving difficulties of this kind. It is entirely possible that Ann participates a certain amount of environmental protection events, while, she always take part in the role of assistant or some restricted trifles those mean little to effective green work.（这个他因找的很主观，每次写他因的时候，都要想想，你写完了之后对文章逻辑有什么削弱作用，就算ann做的工作对环保没有意义了，那又怎么样？题目并没有说ann在环保方面有多么多么高的能力~我仅仅说了，ann是环保局的，所以我选他，至于他的工作如何，我没有提及。） The author doesn't offer any cogent evidences to support Ann Green's outstanding headships or illustrious efforts in the environmental area（这句就不错了，记住他是在选举市长，我仅仅说你没有告诉我ann做的怎么样就好了，上面的属于进一步推理了，a里严防进一步推理）. Moreover, even though the Clearview town council pays lacking attention on the environmental matters, we cannot deduce Frank Braun lacks of capability to handle green target（哦? 这段不是在说ann在环保方面的也不一定是能手么？怎么说到frank 了，将你的首句死死记在心里,而且这个也找得有些牵强，F是current members了，他是认可这个组织的，那么这个组织的决策他应该是赞同的，当然，题目并没有直接说，但是我认为质疑这里是不妥当的）. It is irrational for the author to judge these two candidates' environmental quality simply based on separate organizatons（离开你的中心句了，首句啊首句，要记在心里，而且这句又主观，题目仅仅是交代个背景，千万记住这条）.

其实我觉得，你的最后一句才是真正把握了这个题目的最根本逻辑错误，就是他紧紧用环境来判断一个市长的任命与否，可惜啊可惜，你仅仅在最后一句说了一点这个意思，而且表达还有问题，你可以说 it is irrational for residents to judge their mayor only depond upon  his/her achievements in environment. 但千万别说organizations.
还有，时刻记住你首句写了什么，不要跑题，你的moreover后面就写得不是首句能罩住的东西了。


In the next place, the author concludes the deterioration of environmental conditions quite hastily. Although during the past year the total amount of factories in Clearview has doubled, we can deduce in reason that if there is an attractive investment policy which newly published by the government then more investors choose Clearview as their factory addresses(对论证无用，删掉). The air pollution levels, which the author argues have increased, needs more investigating works（这里感觉不到有让步的关系，although 工厂多了，air pollution level需要在考察？）; as the author mentions in his arguments（废话，删掉，谁都知道是他的argument ^^）, more factories are constructed in this area, if the level compares the increment speed is lower, (which means the number of factories doubled but the air pollution level didn't increase to that extent) we can even say that the control means of air pollution becomes more advanced(我明白你的意思，但是你这么说太晦涩了，直接说，without frank's work, the level may even higher). As well as the 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses, air pollution is not the unique underlying reason which may cause respiratory illnesses(看看，这里又忘了题目说的是啥了吧，人家直接说的是F在环境这方面做的不好，不仅仅是air pollution.而且呼吸道的疾病，air pollution是元凶吧), smoking（这个他因照的不好，不可能仅仅去年一年就突然抽烟的人多了吧） is also threatening people's respiratory health seriously. In short, the author shows several status quos, while he fails to show the connection between such status and the specific surrounding issues（这句就更让我摸不着头脑了，作者说得incresed pollution level, and more 25 percent patients with respiratory in hospital 这些不都是status quo and issues 么？）.

Last but not the least, even if Ann Green was an excellent environment protector, it is still leading insufficient credit to expect her better performance rather than Frank Braun（这句表意不清，乍一看以为你说就算ann不错，也不能说明他的环保工作就比frank 好，我就直接想到第一段了，后面才知道你要说整体工作，这样的话，不如再加个 as a mayor）. The author seems deliberately ignoring(这个词用的不错) the other candidate's information which makes his conclusion quite biased（我看到你说最根本的原因了，开心啊开心，可是为什么不具体说说的呢？比如  economic level, health-care condition, 等等和市长有关的成绩都可以说啊）. Furthermore, being an environmentalist is not the sufficient condition of a splendid mayor（重复上句，两句择其一，后展开之~）. For the sake of electing a better mayor, the residents need to consider circumspectly and integrate several different factors.

In sum, the author fails to consider the extra factors of the correct mayoral election exclude environmental problem, meanwhile, he doesn't show the convincing evidences to sustain Ann Green's obvious advantages. He undoubtedly needs to collect more information to support his argues, otherwise, his claims lead（lead 可以这样用么？后面接adj.？seem不错） less cogent.
结尾还行，不过我建议就不要重复错误了，给出点解决方案是不错的选择~

in sum, 语言还不错，需要下功夫的是逻辑和结构把握，记住一个段落只说明一个问题，且时刻将你的首句记在脑海中，还有一个需要铭记的就是作者的意图，他是要干嘛，一定不能忘。加油，继续努力~
再啰嗦一句，a最好一上来就抓住其最根本错误，而不是随便开攻，记住这道题最最根本的就是 作者 假设 紧紧环境问题就可以左右一个市长的任命！先把这个漏洞找出来，再往下一步步进行。

ps: any question is welcome~

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

3Q~~~~~~~~~~~~

7看鸟~ ~\(≧▽≦)/~啦啦啦