0910AW 同主题写作第十三期 ARGUMENT7 by swekimn

swekimnUID: 2649781

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 the environmental deteriorate, citing the three examples, and then assuming that Ann Green (AG) would do better than current council and another factor that the environment problems are the main city problems, and should select he instead Frank Braun (FB).However, it is fraught with vague, oversimplified, and unwarranted assumptions and exposed the inconsistency in the letter.

Firstly, the author cites the examples to support his point that the current members are not protecting our city, it is groundless. Even if the number of factories doubled last year, it is lack evidences to prove these factories would make air pollution. It is entirely possible that one or more factors would be influence the reason. As is known to all, the atmosphere is move from one area to another, maybe the near cities have an awful air problem or occur a accident last year, and Clearview (C) in the lee position, of course, C would get a bad effect from these. Even if the doubled factories increase the air pollution level, the author haste to ascribe it is the only factor exclusive to respiratory illnesses. The author ignore the other factor may also lead the respiratory illnesses, for example, food pollution, water problems, other illnesses or abroad inflow such as V1H1 or SARS. Even if air pollution leading more patients with respiratory illness, the author fail to rule out provide assurances that the data represent all the city respiratory illnesses. Maybe the survey only contains the large or well-know hospital or the respiratory department. So without detailed analysis of the reasons give to environmental problems, it is absurd for author to posit that the problems are very severe and the current council cannot solve the problem well.

Secondly, in the letter, the author only claims the city have environmental problems and supply several evidences to support his point, but he ignores the information about GEC and AG and he also not provide other information statement about the city. Neither the capacity or contribute or experiment about AG, he haste and curt that AG is the best choose make the comparison is unconvincing. Maybe AG very excellent at solve the environmental problems, the ability of mayoral could not measure only depend on this. For example, the welfare of people life, the local economic, the city fundamental establishments etc. all of the mentioned can reflect the mayoral ability and contribute to the city. The author even takes a example about the local factories doubled past year, the example reflects the C have a booming and prosperous develop business and FB has his own trait for govern the city. What’s more, the author only supply AG and FB as candidate whom should select for next mayoral, at least without supply other people who can achieve a better performance for the city, the two people mentioned be select as mayoral is unwarranted.


Additionally, the author cannot take one year statement of the city to define a mayoral contribute. In any profession, which should have a period to evaluate his contribute. FB may do very well in his tenure, and make the city have a rapidly development in the pass years, and inevitably engender some problems along the building the city. Since, the author provides no detailed information about FB, this conclusion seems like a hasty generalization at best.

To sum up, the author supplies a seemingly favorable proposal to the mayoral selection, whereas his deduction is irrational. To buttress the conclusion, the author should provide evidence that FB not an eligible mayoral. Additionally, the author must rule out AG can make concrete process to solve the problems and give hope to the tomorrow of Clearview.

小小amyUID: 2541111

Grounding on the environmental deteriorate(词性转换), citing the three examples, and then assuming that Ann Green (AG) would do better than current council and another factor that the environment problems are the main city problems, and should select he（him） instead Frank Braun (FB). However, it is fraught with vague，oversimplified, and unwarranted assumptions and exposed the inconsistency in the letter.不错的开头

Firstly, the author cites the examples to support his point that the current members are not protecting our city, it is groundless. Even if the number of factories doubled last year, it is lack[ing] evidences to prove these factories would make air pollution. It is entirely possible that one or more factors would be influence the reason. As is known to all, the atmosphere is move from one area to another, maybe the near cities have an awful air problem or occur an accident last year, and Clearview (C) in the lee position, of course, would get a bad effect from these. Even if the doubled factories increase the air pollution level, the author haste[ns] to ascribe it is the only factor exclusive to respiratory illnesses. The author ignore[s] the other factor[s] may also lead the respiratory illnesses, for example, food pollution, water problems, other illnesses or abroad inflow (epidemics) such as V1H1 or SARS. Even if air pollution lead【s】 more patients with respiratory illness, the author fail to rule out (删) provide assurances that the data represent all the city respiratory illnesses. Maybe the survey only contains the large or well-know hospital or the respiratory department. So without detailed analysis of the reasons give to environmental problems, it is absurd for author to posit that the problems are very severe and the current council cannot solve the problem well. 层层递进的攻击，不错~就是最后那个批数据可能不代表所有的人，有批survey的倾向，一般好像不攻击，当然，个人意见呵呵。

Secondly, in the letter, the author only claims the city have environmental problems and supply several evidences to support his point, but he ignores the information about GEC and AG and he also not provide（可以这样？） other information [on] statement about the city. Neither the capacity or contribute or experiment about AG, he haste (词性) and curt（词性） that AG is the best choose make the comparison is unconvincing. Maybe AG 【谓语去哪了】very excellent at solve the environmental problems, the ability of mayoral could not measure (be measured) only depend on this. For example, the welfare of people life, the local economic, the city fundamental establishments etc. all of the mentioned can reflect the mayoral ability and contribute to the city (这个句子你再看看). The author even takes a[n] example about the local factories doubled past year, the example reflects the C have a booming and prosperous develop business and FB has his own trait for govern the city (额……F不是上届市长，不能随便这么建议). What’s more, the author only supply AG and FB as candidate whom should select for next mayor, at least without supply other people who can achieve a better performance for the city, the two people mentioned be select as mayoral is unwarranted【最后这一句假设是好的，随便提一下好了，写长了看着有点跑题，重点不在还有别人而在于这2个人的比较】.

Additionally, the author cannot take one year statement of the city to define a mayoral contribute. In any profession, which should have a period to evaluate his contribute. FB may do very well in his tenure, and make the city have a rapidly development in the pass years, and inevitably engender some problems along the building the city. Since, the author provides no detailed information about FB, this conclusion seems like a hasty generalization at best. 这个段，很多余，批一年这个时间太短有批survey倾向。F的资料不足，F的执政能力比较跟上一段有重合，要不这段比较他们的能力。咳咳，如果批不好见谅。

To sum up, the author supplies a seemingly favorable proposal to the mayoral selection, whereas his deduction is irrational. To buttress the conclusion, the author should provide evidence that FB not an eligible mayoral. Additionally, the author must rule out（汗，你翻译过来是什么，至少后面can要改成cannot） AG can make concrete process to solve the problems and give hope to the tomorrow of Clearview.
没猜错的话那些词性用错的是临时查的吧，注意词性变化单复数~文章前一半很有逻辑，看的也顺，后面就开始乱了，好好整理一下会是很不错的文文哦。加油~！批的不好的话见谅哦~

swekimnUID: 2649781

2# 小小amy
  首先谢谢~~修改了~~
  这篇写了一半，想查点东西~~然后~~就囧~~跑去逛贴吧~~回来不记得写到哪里了~~

   关于rule out最近比较喜欢用~~排除的意思吧~~~

   读出来觉得很顺~~情不自禁就用了～～　　
　　

　　最后写写了～～
　　
　还有你猜错了～～那些用错的词～～是我自己写的模板～～被你打击了～～