0910AW 同主题写作第十三期 ARGUMENT7 by iloveusa2009

iloveusa2009UID: 2650557

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."


Based on the fact that the number of factories in Clearview(C) has doubled, air pollution levels and patients with respiratory illnesses have increased, the author assumes that the current members of C town council are not protecting environment. Then the author concludes that they should elect Ann Green (AG) instead of Frank Braun (FB) in order to solve the environmental problems in C. This argument, however, contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that the increasing factory number count for air pollution and respiratory illnesses. No evidence mentioned in the argument can support this assumption. Perhaps, the air pollution is caused by waste gas blowing from nearby towns. In addition, it is entirely possible that most of patients with respiratory illnesses in C town’s local hospital are coming from other town because C town can provide a better medical treatment. Without ruling out other possibility, the author cannot convince me that increasing factories in C caused air pollution and respiratory illnesses.

Secondly, the number of factories has doubled does not indicate that C town council are not protecting environment. Maybe these new-built factories are just project of sewage treatment, refuse reclamation and other green enterprise. Without more information about the type of these factories’, the author cannot draw any conclusion about the C town’s attitude towards environment.

Thirdly, even if the C town council would not like to protect environment, it does not indicate that FB will also hold the same attitude. Perhaps, FB devotes to protect environment while the C town council fails to do so. For that matter, it is possible that FB’s impact is not heavy enough to influence the decision made by C town council.

Thirdly, even if FB has no willing to protect environment, the author provides no evidence to prove that AG will surely protect environment as well after being selected. To be a member of Good Earth Coalition does not indicate that AG will surely commit herself to environment protection. Perhaps the publicity of AG’s identity involve in Good Earth Coalition is just a campaign measure. Without more detail about the Good Earth Coalition, the author cannot conclude that AG will solve the environmental problems in C.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must provide more information about the Good Earth Coalition and the attitude of environment protection between AG and FB. To better assess the argument, we need also to know the background of the patients with respiratory illnesses and more detail of the increasing factories.

swifUID: 2530426

Based on the fact that the number of factories in Clearview(C) has doubled, air pollution levels and patients with respiratory illnesses have increased, the author assumes that the current members of C town council are not protecting environment【最好加个冠词the】. Then the author concludes that they【指代不明，直接用residents of C】 should elect Ann Green (AG) instead of Frank Braun (FB) in order to solve the environmental problems in C. This argument, however, contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.First of all, the author unfairly assumes that the increasing factory number count for【这是有价值的意思吧，是想要用acounts for吧】 air pollution and respiratory illnesses. No evidence mentioned in the argument can support this assumption. Perhaps, the air pollution is caused by waste gas blowing from nearby towns. In addition, it is entirely possible that most of patients with respiratory illnesses in C town’s local hospital are coming【直接come吧】 from other town because C town can provide a better medical treatment. Without ruling out other possibility, the author cannot convince me that increasing factories in C caused air pollution and respiratory illnesses.Secondly, the number of factories has doubled does not indicate that C town council are not protecting environment. Maybe these new-built factories are just project of sewage treatment, refuse reclamation and other green enterprise. Without more information about the type【用复数比较好】 of these factories’【factories】, the author cannot draw any conclusion about the C town’s 【council's】attitude towards environment.Thirdly, even if the C town council would not like to protect environment, it does not indicate that FB will also hold 【also holds】the same attitude. Perhaps, FB devotes to protect environment while the C town council fails to do so. For that matter, it is possible that FB’s impact is not heavy enough to influence the decision made by C town council.Thirdly【该第四了吧】, even if FB has no willing to protect environment, the author provides no evidence to prove that AG will surely protect environment as well after being selected【elected】. To be a member of Good Earth Coalition does not indicate that AG will surely commit herself to environment protection. Perhaps the publicity of AG’s identity involve in Good Earth Coalition is just a campaign measure. Without more detail about the Good Earth Coalition, the author cannot conclude that AG will solve the environmental problems in C.In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must provide more information about the Good Earth Coalition and the attitude of environment protection between AG and FB. To better assess the argument, we need also to know the background of the patients with respiratory illnesses and more detail【复数】 of the increasing factories.
整篇文章语法错误太多，建议你好好复习下语法
逻辑基本没有问题，因为好像是基本模仿的北美范文
第一次修改，不当之处还请指出

iloveusa2009UID: 2650557

"逻辑基本没有问题，因为好像是基本模仿的北美范文"

这句话纯属胡扯！这是个人独立思考的结果！
请注意：不要仅凭主观臆断乱下定论！

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

"逻辑基本没有问题，因为好像是基本模仿的北美范文"

这句话纯属胡扯！这是个人独立思考的结果！
请注意：不要仅凭主观臆断乱下定论！
iloveusa2009 发表于 2009-7-30 11:22

pat pat，楼楼不要激动，做到逻辑清晰，做到独立思考就是好的开始，加油↖(^ω^)↗
至于啥北美不北美的咩。。咳咳。。咱身正不怕影子斜就可以啦，+U~

iloveusa2009UID: 2650557

pat pat，楼楼不要激动，做到逻辑清晰，做到独立思考就是好的开始，加油↖(^ω^)↗
至于啥北美不北美的咩。。咳咳。。咱身正不怕影子斜就可以啦，+U~
家家☆yoonjae 发表于 2009-7-30 11:32

那种没有任何依据仅凭个人猜测就妄下定论的行径，实在不应该出现在GRE这种考试的论坛里。
说到底，这根本就是一个态度问题，你看那人说那两句“评语”，没有任何信息量不说，竟然还掺杂了对他人思考写作成果的诋毁和不尊重，这是令人发指的！

试问：你一考试得高分别人就说你作弊，你一参加体育比赛得冠军就有人跳出来说你服用兴奋剂， 你会怎么样？骂两句也都算客气的了吧？

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

;P 这个比方咳咳实在。。。

所以我不是说了么，做到身正不怕影子斜就好啦，最后拿到一个好分数才是关键，别的么，有则改之无则加勉就好，心态放平一点么

iloveusa2009UID: 2650557

;P 这个比方咳咳实在。。。

所以我不是说了么，做到身正不怕影子斜就好啦，最后拿到一个好分数才是关键，别的么，有则改之无则加勉就好，心态放平一点么
家家☆yoonjae 发表于 2009-7-30 15:07

你似乎不应当来劝说一个遭受无端猜忌诋毁的人不去进行必要的辩护和反击。

似乎更应当去告诫那些喜欢口无遮拦的乱说的人说话之前多思考一下。

冲突的隐患永远是那些不明白自己在说什么，或者即便说了不合适的也没有人去给他们指出来自己还自以为很正确的人。

我的正当反应，恰恰提醒他们注意，不要用他们世代相传的那种“蛮横无礼、自大愚昧、自以为是”的态度去对别人妄下定论。这不仅仅是马英九先生告诫大陆某执政党头目的话，也是现代民主社会基本价值观对某些国家传统腐朽观念的警示。

以上。

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

我倒，越说越严肃了，我觉得楼主似乎是一个很顶真的人，但是我觉得做出这些反应之前，也请考虑版面的和谐跟这样做对你个人而言的意义，如果说你觉得那位同学对你评价不公正，okay，你完全可以PM he / she纠正过来，版面上有“编辑”功能的，如果你觉得这样能让问题得到解决。

那位同学说的话也不一定是贬义的，北美的逻辑就不对么？北美的逻辑就是错误的？这本身就值得商榷，请注意人家指出的仅仅是逻辑，没有说你盗用北美的模板或者是其他，当然如果你觉得那是对你思考成果的不尊重，你完全可以跟对方交涉，说明清楚，但是就这样放在版面上大张旗鼓的批评，我觉得并不是很合适，所以才多嘴说了这几句。既然楼主不领情，那么我也没有什么好说的了。

RufusgwUID: 2501942

多嘴一句，看来LZ犯了错误。不过就因为这原因就把LZ的帐号河蟹了？这也太……

iloveusa2009UID: 2650557

9# Rufusgw

没事了，回来了。
多谢你仗义执言啊，世道不好，但还是有明白人，虽然为数不多，但这也足够了。