0910AW 同主题写作第十三期bywobaobao519 （修改by cmj）

wobaobao519UID: 2605404

TOPIC: 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."


Grounding on the several facts, say, the increasing factories numbers, air pollution, and more respiratory patients, which intend to explain the worse environment of the Clearview, the writer suggest we should vote for Ann Green, a member from the Good Earth Coalition, who would have better solution of worse environment than Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview council. However, the writer takes Green
could do better jobs than Braun for granted, and concluded several unfounded claim with limited information.

First of all, the writer unfairly contributes doubled number of factories, air pollution and more increasing respiratory illness to the results of the worse environment, and what is more important, to prove the current council member do not protect the environment. At first, from the information provided by the writer, we could hardly reach the assumption the environment is much worse than before. There is no confirmative information to assert the factories would all make destructive influence on the environment, maybe those newly built factories value environment much, and equip the latest instrument to make least pollution as possible. Also the writer do not mention the exact number of the factories, it is highly possible before in the Clearview there is only one factory , if so, the increasing number of the factory would be also one, which means we would not make fuss about the doubled number. Second, the writer blames increasing number of respiratory for only factor, air pollution, without any consideration of other possibilities, such as flu spread in the town for a while, or people do not get used to the more changeable weather last year, thus more easily to catch the cold than ever or maybe the respiratory illness was due to virus
infection and so on. All these factors can also play active role, or even determine role in the higher percent of the respiratory illness last year. Third, the writer bases on these information, which needs to be further proved, to convince us the current council do not take their responsibilities to protect our environment. If the evidence is not right or confirmative, how could make us to believe the writer’s blames on the current council?

Even as the writer claims, the current council do not protect environment effectively, we also can not reach the assumption that
electing Green would be a better choice than that council member Braun. By exactly pointing out Green is a member from Good earth coalition, the writer assumes that Green would emphasis on protecting environment in a vital place, which we do have concrete information to support. Such information included the attitude of her treating environment; the measurement she is going to take; the foresight of development and so on. By the same token, the writer unfairly equates current authorities with Braun, assuming that Braun would not protect the environment just based on the fact he is from current council. Maybe he is the one values enviornment. All those assumptions are made by the writer, yet do not provide any confirmative evidence and detail information to support.

Even they should select Green for mayor, the final assumption that environment problem would be certainly worked out by Green is open to doubt. Several mistakes lies in this assumption. At first, as a common sense, the problem of the environment is not such an easy problem which can be worked out easily by individuality efforts. What is more, the writer have super confidence about Green which we could not find reasons to support. Without any more information about the Green, such as the effective of her measurement, or her insight thinking ability, or the ability to make her words into actions. Without such information, it is very unwarranted for us to believe she would solve the problem well as it asserts.

From what we have discussed above, we find the writer's conclusion is not so compelling and convincing. To make his argument more convincing , the writer should provide more information about the Ann Green, say , more details in her plan and measurements to protect the environment. And make it clear the exactly relationship between respiratory illness and air pollution.

wobaobao519UID: 2605404

后来想说是不是我的第一段里面的最后的一个攻击点就不要写出来
这样反而让人很不清晰呢？
直接不要这样的一句话what is more important, to prove the current council member do not protect the environment. 就是不提这个，会不会更好一些?疑问：我们要不要指出说这样的一句话:既然论据不是合理， 那么你的结论当然就要打问号了？
还有就是这些假设中我觉得其实很多都是包括了两个方面的，
就是一方面假设了Green 可以做好，
一方面假设Braun不可以做好，
这样的话，
是应该放在一个段落里进行攻击，
还会分开来一个一个攻击？感觉上放在一个段落攻击会更好，
但是这样写起来总觉的很混乱，
没有逻辑~~~（自己总感觉做的不好）
哦， 还有不是很确定可不可以攻击他说的双倍这件事情呢？
自己写的时候总觉得自己貌似不是很有理

小小amyUID: 2541111

爬过……慢慢改

ddcmj519UID: 176326

TOPIC: 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."

个人段内意见，建议修改
个人段落意见，建议修改
个人意见，不是很重要
个人比较赞赏的地方~


Grounding on the several facts, say,有一点点啰嗦，后面还有针对这些facts的定语从句，这样一个名词再一个插入语，有点找不到重点的感觉 the increasing factories numbers, air pollution, and more respiratory patients, which intend to explain用词不是很恰当，不是facts explain，是作者用facts 去explain，当然这个是写长句的风险之一，句内逻辑容易飘。下次写长句的时候注意啦~ the worse environment of the Clearview,断句。。 the writer suggest寒。。时态。。 we 审题。题目中这封信是写给编辑的。The following appeared in a letter to the editor of the Clearview newspaper。要到we决定选举还需要几个步骤。。should vote for Ann Green, a member from the Good Earth Coalition, who would have better solution of worse environment than Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview council. 这个是作者的assumption，这么早提出来不是很恰当。有可能被理解成题意的曲解。However, the writer takes Green could do better jobs than Braun for granted,这个是你的assumption。作者是由对环境的关心程度选举的。当然这也只是我的个人理解。题目的意思是说选了ANN，在环境方面的问题就可以解决。 and concluded several unfounded claim with limited information. 这个倒是比较实质了~ 模板不模板其实不是问题。关键是能够用有效的文字支撑自己的观点。
开头，我个人的观点就是一个把题目逻辑链理清楚的过程。而其中的作者assumption什么之类的，如果提及就务必说明是没有提及的。最好就是在单纯的而题目逻辑链复述以后再写。这样才显得自己对这段内容理解的充分，逻辑上清晰。你觉得呢？

First of all, the writer unfairly contributes doubled number of factories, air pollution and more increasing respiratory illness 可以适当考虑精简一下·to the results of the删，多余 worse environment, and what is more important, to prove the current council member do not protect the environment. 没到要害哇。重点是要说竞选的事儿，这个连系可以通过加插入语解决。不过这个句子已经够长了。额。。另外我个人觉得这样把两个assumption放一段说比较风险。最好的方法可能是每分析一个内容都走两步，而不是你下面那样分开走，显得比较凌乱，当然，纯粹个人意见。At first, 和段首的用词稍微有重复。这个问题可以由在首句直接点明错误，第二句就直接这些错误表现在什么地方。 这种方法解决。当然这是我个人习惯。另外我觉得你似乎这段的段内逻辑似乎不是很清晰。from the information provided by the writer, we could hardly reach the assumption the environment is much worse than before.无实际内容。考虑结合到文章内容里面去。毕竟你上面已经说过类似批判的内容了。 There is no confirmative information to assert the factories would all make destructive influence on the environment, maybe those newly built factories value environment 主语宾语搭配有点问题。。much, and equip这个该是被动态吧。。 the latest instrument to make least pollution as possible. Also the writer do not mention the exact number of the factories, it is highly possible before in the Clearview there is only one factory , if so, the increasing number of the factory would be also one, which means we would not make fuss about the doubled number. Second, the writer blames increasing number of respiratory for only factor, air pollution,感觉好像用的不太对来着。。回头查下？ without any consideration of other possibilities, such as flu spread in the town for a while, or people do not get used to the more changeable weather last year,such as后面跟名词。。怎么变句子了呢。。 thus more easily to catch the cold than ever or maybe the respiratory illness was due to virus infection and so on.咳咳。同学的长句引起注意。。你这样的长句非但不能把自己的意思表达清楚，反而显得自己思路更加混乱了。 All these factors can also play active role, or even determine role in the higher percent of the respiratory illness last year. Third,这个third应该是和前面俩平行的结构，用来论述increasing air pollution level吧。但是你后面阐述的内容却是在这些内容上更进了一步把这3个东西和city council 联系起来。所以一种改法是加上air 那个后面这里改成futhermore承接。另一种是把以上内容换掉，包括他因假设，使这个三个内容直接和市议会挂钩。你觉得哪个好些呢？ the writer bases on these information, which needs to be further proved, to convince us the current council do not take their responsibilities to protect our environment. If the evidence is not right or confirmative,其实这里还可以让一步，说就算这些是真滴，也不能说明市议会怎么样怎么样。 how could make us to believe the writer’s blames on the current council?表达的有点问题。改成city council's ignorance of environmental problems.可能会好些。
明确一下你这段要说的东西，在段首说的很明白了1.那3个不一定是环境污染的全部指标2.就算是也不能代表city council不关心环境。这两个如果觉得一段说不清楚可以考虑分开。个人觉得不是很必要。因为这三个example都是为了达到2.这个目的。这个中间需要有那么些个过度。我的意见是1.略写大概举个反例就可以了，不要因为很好写而在这个上面一发不可收拾。2才是我们写的时候要达到的最终目的，需要必需说清楚的地方。所以建议这段大翻修一下~

Even as the writer claims, the current council do not protect environment effectively, we also can not reach the assumption 你后面说的是conclusion。。注意区分下这几个术语。awintro里面说的很清楚哇>.<  that electing Green would be a better choice than that council member Braun.有点多余 By exactly pointing out Green is a member from Good earth coalition, the writer assumes that Green would emphasis on protecting environment in a vital place, which we do have concrete information to support. Such information included the attitude of her treating environment; the measurement she is going to take; the foresight of development 跟前面一个重复 and so on.话没说透。作者是把一个组织拿去代表个人了。这里有什么什么样的问题。写A的时候一定要把这些含糊的潜藏含义交代清楚。 By the same token, the writer unfairly equates current authorities with Braun, assuming that Braun would not protect the environment just based on the fact he is from current council. Maybe he is the one values enviornment. 也是上面那个问题 All those assumptions are made by the writer, 这话挺不地道的。。yet do not provide any confirmative evidence and detail information to support.这句就很不合适了。。这段的主要错误是以面概点。所以不是说证据不好或说明不详细之类的问题。而是应该代表的有问题。这个就是套用模板句时候一定要注意的东西。切记要有效结合自己的内容。
咳咳。语言功底。。需要大大加强><
A和F，这里文章都是通过背景组织而代表他们个人观点了。逻辑上的错误是一样的，所以放在一起写实完全没有问题的。我个人觉得，完全可以开始就说明是同一个问题。而在他们个人态度上他们可能因为哪些哪些问题导致那个组织不能代表他们个人观点。因为我觉得关于这个问题的他因，对两个人举出来的基本是类似或者一致的，还不如合并起来，精简文字，也是段内结构清晰~

Even they should select Green for mayor, the final assumption that environment problem would be certainly worked out by Green is open to doubt. Several mistakes lies in this assumption.我总觉得这句话不太对啊。。没这种表达吧。。 At first, as a common sense, the problem of the environment is not such an easy problem which can be worked out easily by individuality efforts.名词+名词？ What is more, the writer have super confidence about用词不当 Green which we could not find reasons to support.这话看着挺别扭。。 Without any more我更倾向用further detailed information about the 这个？多了吧。Green, such as the effective of her measurement, or her insight thinking ability, or the ability to make her words into actions.执政能力等等。。这方面更多一些民众关心的，直观的问题可能更好些。比如经济问题是否能解决，行政上的如外交，以及其他一些选举时候更关系紧密的原因（见资料） Without such information, it is very unwarranted for us to believe she would solve the problem well as it asserts.
这段写的时候感觉还没跳出上一段的圈子。所举的他因也是和上一段比较类似，（也就是说不怎么合适。额）。同时这一段内容作者也都是两个人都忽视都没有考虑的问题。也考虑是开头都点出来，然后在后面据例子的时候分别详述一下即可。这样只考虑AG一个人的，个人觉得比较片面。

From what we have discussed above, we find the writer's conclusion is not so compelling and convincing. To make his argument more convincing , the writer should provide more information about the Ann Green, say , more details in her plan and measurements to protect the environment这里再多加几个，如果时间来的及话。尽量把上面说到不足的地方在这里都提出改进. And make it clear the exactly relationship between respiratory illness and air pollution.最后再来句总结会更好些~


总的说一下~第一body段写的真多。。后面越来越少。。不知道是功夫下得不多还是因为第一个太“好”写~？
事实上第一段也没写的很好。
这里就是要说一个问题。
有的时候，嗯，issue也是一样的，看到一个题目，激动哇~这个简单，于是就开始天马行空。
事实上正是因为这些“简单”，导致了我们忽视本质的问题。
所以当觉得“简单”的时候，请一定保持冷静的头脑。搞清楚我们写这些东西的最终目的是什么。怎样才能达到。一定不要被情绪冲昏头脑~
加油~~

后来想说是不是我的第一段里面的最后的一个攻击点就不要写出来
这样反而让人很不清晰呢？
直接不要这样的一句话what is more important, to prove the current council member do not protect the environment. 就是不提这个，会不会更好一些?疑问：我们要不要指出说这样的一句话:既然论据不是合理， 那么你的结论当然就要打问号了？
以上回答在文中~
还有就是这些假设中我觉得其实很多都是包括了两个方面的，
就是一方面假设了Green 可以做好，
一方面假设Braun不可以做好，
这样的话，
是应该放在一个段落里进行攻击，
还会分开来一个一个攻击？感觉上放在一个段落攻击会更好，
但是这样写起来总觉的很混乱，
没有逻辑~~~（自己总感觉做的不好）
因为这两个是相同的错误，所以放在一段是没有问题的，你那样写作也是可以的~只是文字驾驭上得下点功夫了~~
哦， 还有不是很确定可不可以攻击他说的双倍这件事情呢？
自己写的时候总觉得自己貌似不是很有理
确实有点强词夺理了，而且抠的有点过细，如我上面所说重点是最后的联系部分~
他因的事儿得仔细琢磨，选出最合理的即可~加油吧~

咳咳。综述一下。文章的整体把握还是可以滴。但是文章内部语言驾驭能力需要下功夫提高。他因和段落&整体关系需要再研究研究。可能还没有写太多吧？还需要加油咯~
（改了很久。。思路可能有脱节的地方。。望指出。。再讨论。）

嗯。以上内容请批判接受，仅代表个人意见。嗯。

wobaobao519UID: 2605404

啊~版主就开始改了啊~~好像还在进行中~~辛苦辛苦，好认真，给你捶捶背ing~~

ddcmj519UID: 176326

终于改完鸟= =

批判接受批判接受~~

wobaobao519UID: 2605404

非常谢谢，很有启发，这篇文章是我在发现我的A 有很大问题后的时候写的第一篇
自己写的很痛苦，总觉得自己逻辑不清
现在经过你的修改，再次写的时候清晰明白了很多，谢谢！！bow bow bow
下面是我的重写稿
By pointing out the worse environment in the Clearview, the writer suggests  we should vote for Ann Green(R) rather than Frank Braun(B). However,  this argument suffers from a series of logical flaws and conducted several unfounded claim with limited information, which renders it unpersuasive as it stands.

First and foremost, the existence of the worse status of environment and current Council low effectiveness in protecting the environment  does not equal necessarily to a causation or even a correlation between them. As the writer does not provide further information to prove it is the latter one causes the former, it is entirely possible that those factories are environment friendly, which equipped with latest technologies to make least pollution. If that is the case, then we can not even say the environment is worse than before. Even it is true for worse environment, we still find several other alternatives to cause 25% more patients last year. Maybe, more people began to smoke; people who smokes are likely to have respiratory illnesses, or maybe the weather last year was more changeable than ever; people got sick more often, or maybe there was a flu spreading the region, all these possibilities above can also explain why there are more patients. We can not simply based on such limited evidence which the  writer provides to assert the causal relationship between them.

Even as the writer claims, the current Council is responsible for the worse environment, we still can not find suffice information to connect this blame with Frank Braun and reasons why we should not vote for him. Would the current Council's fault be the reason why people should not vote for Braun ? Just because his membership in it? Of course not. Maybe B has nothing to do with the council decision-making before and just a member in it, or even maybe he is the one who disapprove current council’s decision on environment  yet do not have enough right to affect the result of it. If that is the case, we treat so unfairly to B and made a huge mistake. Without ruling out such possibilities, we can not convince ourselves to believe writer's claim.

Furthermore, the author hasty suggests we should vote for G and G would solved environment but without offering evidence to support. The mere fact G comes from Good Earth Collation does not equate with G values environment protecting much. It is totally possible G is not so concerned with it even she is a member in it. Even she emphasis environment very much, it still can not ensure she would solved environment problems and be a excellent mayor in the town. To be good leader in the town is far beyond concern and emphasis on environment, it included many other factors such as the foresight, the abilities turning words into actions, even worship in people. Would she be able to handle complex diplomatic relationship with other regions? Would she be able to solve taxes, housing and educating , problems related with all fields？ Would she be satisfied with the residents? All those questions are open to doubt. If G do not bear such abilities or do not have enough abilities to support her to be a outstanding leader, then voting for her is not so wise choice for people in the town. Lacking further information to substantiate the writer’s point, the writer can not make his suggestion appealing to readers.

To sum up, the writer should add more information to foster his argument, for example, the exact relationship between worse environment and current council effectiveness, the further comprehensive information about the G and B. Only by that, the writer's argument would be more convincing and persuasive.

知道还是会有问题，恩，不怕，会努力做好。