0910AW 同主题写作第十三期 Argument7 by Adeline

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

提纲：
1. 作者所给的证明：工厂数量翻倍、空气污染水平上升、去医院看呼吸道疾病的病人数增多并不能说明该镇存在的环境问题，也不    能证明Braun和council的member不关心环境问题
2. 仅仅因为Green是环保组织的一员不能断定Green在环境保护工作中的作用
3. 环境问题并不是竞选过程中选民唯一需要考虑的问题，作者没有给出Green在处理其他各种复杂事务方面的能力。

In this argument, the editorial recommends that residents of Clearview vote for Ann Green because of his position as a member of the Good Earth Coalition rather than Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearview town council. To support the recommendation, the author gives several evidence to present the environmental problems in the Clearview town. On the basis of this evidence the author implies that current council members care little about the environmental problems and that Green can solve the problems. However, close scrutiny of these evidence and the author's reasoning reveals that they provide little credible support for the author's recommendation.

A threshold problem of the argument is that the arguer unfairly assumes Frank Braun, as a member of Clearview town council, does not care about the environmental problems. The arguer then use evidence to support this assumption, such as the doubled number of factories in Clearview during the past year, the increased air pollution levels and more patients with respiratory illnesses in the local hospital. However, these evidence can provide little credible support for the assumption for several critical flaws. To begin with, the doubled number of factories do not indicate that Frank and the Clearview town council care little about the environment. Perhaps the new factories take certain measures to decrease air pollution. Without such information the argument is unconvincing. Also, as to the increased air pollution levels, the author can conclude nothing unless he or she compares Clearview with nearby cities. Perhaps the air pollution is mainly caused by the cities next to Clearview because air pollution is a global problem. Finally, the increasing number of patients with respiratory illnesses is not necessarily caused by the air pollution. It is entirely possible that the increase is due to more effective cigarette marketing. Without ruling out this and other factors, the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that Frank Braun and Clearview town council do not pay attention to the environmental problems the town meets.

Even assuming that Braun does care less about the environmental problems, the arguer makes a hasty generalization that Green cares a lot about the environment and can do well in improving the environmental situation of the town. The mere fact that Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition is scant evidence that she can solve the environmental problems Clearview meets now. The arguer reveals nothing about the contribution to environment protection Green has made. In short, lacking evidence that she has done a lot to protect the environment and has gain enough experience in environmental protection, the arguer cannot convince me that Green can surely solve the environmental problems in Clearview if she is elected.

The last problem worth considering is that the author falsely implies that environmental problem is the only problem that should be considered by the residents of Clearview in the mayoral election. Though I concede that environmental problem is an important factor the residents should think about when they make their best choice, this single element is insufficient to decide whom to elect. Other factors, including science and technology advancement, political position, economical development and educational strategies, are all important elements the residents should consider about to carefully determine whom to vote. It is entirely possible that environmental problem is not the essential problem Clearview meets. Dealing with such complex problems need experiences. Without additional evidence about Green’s ability to handle the complex situation government has to meet with, I cannot accept the author's recommendation to elect Green as the mayor merely considering the environmental problem.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the editorial would have to produce more evidence considering Frank 's ignorance about the environmental problems. To better assess the argument it will be useful to know how much contribution Green has made to protect the environment. Also useful would be any information about Green’s ability to deal with the other problems apart from the environmental ones.

尾羽UID: 2482591

改好了~个人建议啊~不一定对的~呵呵

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

呀，非常感谢哟！～:loveliness: