同主题第十三期 Argument7 by Jeremie

JeremieUID: 2622601

写得一般,还在学习中,欢迎多提意见.先感谢互改的同学;)
The argument recommends that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green instead of Frank Braun. To support the idea, the author cites several facts including Green's identification in the Good Earth Coalition, the current situation of environment and even the health of residents and so on. However, close scrutiny of each these facts reveals that none of these facts lend credible support to the recommendation.

In the first place, it is hasty to claim that Green can solve the environmental problem by the mere fact that Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, Which can only at most get the conclusion that he is concerned about the environment. To solve the environmental problem, however, requires quite a lot of work, such as compromising with other departments and considering the industrial production thorough. These qualities obviously have little to do with the coalition itself. While from the argument, we can't know whether Green is capable of facing the problems.

Moreover, the author fails to establish the relationship between the facts about the factories, the patients and the air pollution, thus the claim is not persuasive that the current members are not protecting the environment. First, the author does not mention whether the newly built factories do harm to the environment, whether they have taken environmental protecting measures, and perhaps the increased factories are not responsible for the air pollution. Besides, the cause of the air pollution is not well analyzed; maybe it is not result from the city itself, but other factors such as the wind from cities nearby. Thirdly, no evidence can prove that the patients' respiratory illnesses are the result of suffering from air pollution; it is common that capricious climate, diminishing body function lead to these kind of diseases.

Before the final conclusion, it is also vital to point out another flaw concerning the other candidate Braun. Even if the current government does not care about the environment, we cannot draw the conclusion that Braun is also not. There is the possibility that he does care about the environment in spite of the majority's indifferent and is able to solve the complicated problem. The specific qualities of Braun, however, are also not mentioned in the recommendation.

After analyzing the evidence as well as the reasoning, it is clear that we can't safely reach the conclusion that to vote for Green can assure the residents to have a better environment as the author after all makes an argument that is not practical. To bolster the recommendation, the author should provide detailed information about the two candidates and the current members' attitude towards environment; go deep into the situation of the newly built factories and the patients with respiratory illness during the past year. After all, the mayoral selection is crucial for the local residents to have a satisfactory life in the next years.

Mason.PDUID: 2592013

The argument recommends that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green instead of Frank Braun. To support the idea, the author cites several facts including Green's identification in the Good Earth Coalition, the current situation of environment and even the health of residents and so on. However, close scrutiny of each these facts reveals that none of these facts lend credible support to the recommendation.

这个开头很模版，大致就是复述题目了，建议你看下666大人的这个https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=920961&highlight

In the first place, it is hasty to claim that Green can solve the environmental problem by the mere fact that Green is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, Which can only at most get the conclusion that he is concerned about the environment. To solve the environmental problem, however, requires quite a lot of work, such as compromising with other departments and considering the industrial production thorough. These qualities obviously have little to do with the coalition itself. While from the argument, we can't know whether Green is capable of facing the problems.

Moreover, the author fails to establish the relationship between the facts about the factories, the patients and the air pollution, thus the claim is not persuasive that the current members are not protecting the environment. First, the author does not mention whether the newly built factories do harm to the environment, whether they have taken environmental protecting measures, and perhaps the increased factories are not responsible for the air pollution. Besides, the cause of the air pollution is not well analyzed; maybe it is not result from the city itself, but other factors such as the wind from cities nearby（这边说清楚点啊，其他城市的风？）. Thirdly, no evidence can prove that the patients' respiratory illnesses are the result of suffering from air pollution; it is common that capricious climate, diminishing body function lead to these kind of diseases. 加上一句小结的话

Before the final conclusion, it is also vital to point out another flaw concerning the other candidate Braun. Even if the current government does not care about the environment, we cannot draw the conclusion that Braun is（does） also not（加do so）. There is the possibility that he does care about the environment in spite of the majority's indifferent and is able to solve the complicated problem. The specific qualities of Braun, however（这边和上文不构成转折关系，都是猜测，改成meanwhile）, are also not mentioned in the recommendation.

After analyzing the evidence as well as the reasoning, it is clear that we can't safely reach the conclusion that to vote for Green can assure the residents to have a better environment as the author after all makes an argument that is not practical. To bolster the recommendation, the author should provide detailed information about the two candidates and the current members' attitude towards environment; go deep into the situation of the newly built factories and the patients with respiratory illness during the past year. After all, the mayoral selection is crucial for the local residents to have a satisfactory life in the next years.

蓝字 模版
红字 点评
我对你破题的思路不是太同意，个人比较喜欢的是按作者的逻辑思路进行批驳（其实自己做的也不是太好）
你的3个破题点依次是
1.Green不一定能解决环境污染问题
2.空气污染和工厂数量增加、呼吸道病人增加不一定有关
3.不能说braun是council的人，所以他一定不关心环境问题
这3点都很大众，所以如果你思维乱的话rater不会给你高分的

个人的建议
批驳顺序
作者是这样考虑的
Clearview的工厂数量翻了一番，而且当地医院因呼吸道疾病就诊的数量增加了25％→空气污染水平增加了→当前的市委成员没有保护我们的环境→Frank Braun是Clearview市委成员→Frank Braun没有保护环境
还有一个是 Ann Green是Good Earth Coalition成员→Ann Green一定能想出政策保护环境+Frank Braun没有保护环境→在下一次市长选举中，Clearview的市应投Good Earth Coalition成员Ann Green的票，而不是Clearview市委成员Frank Braun
4处粉红的是我觉得作者的漏洞处，攻击的他因可以有很多，我就不说了，我的意见就是这个顺序
1.没有证据说明空气污染和工厂、病人有关
2.就算确实市委没有保护环境，不能说FB也不保护环境
3.就算FB不保护环境，不能说AG就可以解决问题
4.就算AG可以解决环境问题，市长选举是否不考虑其他因素？

当然只是个人见解，欢迎讨论。

JeremieUID: 2622601

2# Mason.PD

你说的对！这是我好早之前写的，刚看到同主题就贴上来了，发现确实很菜啊！谢谢你的建议，学习了！！

这篇确实很模版，我会改进一下的~