GRE习作修改集--Argument篇(老外修改）

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."

Merely relied on a series of unfounded assumptions and vague evidence, the author comes to the unconvincing conclusion that the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved with electing Ann Green.

To strengthen the conclusion, the author asserts that the current members are not protecting our environment. In addition, the letter sets the examples of doubled number of factories, increasing levels of air condition, and more treatment cases of respiratory illnesses in Clearview. On the surface, the argument appears to be somewhat compelling, however, neither does the author provide warranted evidence to make the letter sound nor organize a logic argument in favor of the conclusion. As it stands, the arguer ignores several important concerns as follows, which must be addressed to prove.

In the first place, the author uses the statistical relationship between the claim that residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than for Frank Braun and the possible fact that the current members are not protecting our environment. Nevertheless, the fact upstairs does necessarily prove that Ann Green should be chosen. Even if the current members do not protect our environment; it does not show so does Frank Braun. Maybe he has try his best to protect the environment but difficultly in place of what harmful things the current do for envirnment. More evidences are needed for it.

In the second place, we need more points of evidence for the examples. First, see to the fact that the number of factories in Clearview has doubled during the past year. No more evidence shows that these new factories pollute the environment. Perhaps, more than 90% of them are little pollution factories for environment. Second, it is perhaps air pollution from nearby towns blowing by wind increase air pollution levels of Clearview. Perhaps the air condition is more clearly than before without the factors of the other cities. In addition, the 25% more patients of respiratory illnesses dose not show the current members are not protecting environment. Maybe more than 50% patients are from other cities as a good condition of respiratory illnesses treatment in this local hospital. So, until these questions are answered, the examples are worthless as evidences for the conclusion.

Further more, although the assumptions and examples are truly enough, it does not show Ann Green should be voted. To choose a leader of city, we need a full aspect of view in place of if he/she merely taking care of pollution. If Ann Green has no respect of increasing economic, falls keeping process of education and so on, how can people choose him/her?

Overall, though the argument seems to be logical and plausible, actually, it is neither sound nor persuasive. To make the argument more logically acceptable, the author would have to provide more specific information regarding the assumptions and examples. With being given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.