ARGUMENT好文欣赏十六篇Argument7.doc

Argument 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 environment problems in Clearview will certainly be solved” Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the statement drew a conclusion that the residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun in the next mayoral election. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out that the current members are not protecting our environment. Furthermore, the environment problems in Clearview will certainly be solved if we elect Ann Green. In addition, he cites the result of a recent survey in support of his recommendation. At the first glance, this argument seems to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits some important concerns which should be addressed in the statement. In my point of view, this argument suffers from more than three logical flaws. First and foremost, the threshold problem with this argument is that the author’s recommendation relies on an unwarranted assumption that the Ann Green will deal with the environment protection if were elected as the mayor. In fact, it is not a necessary case. For example, it is most likely that the Ann Green government, similarly to the current town council, will not emphasis the significance of the environment. Providing Ann Green accentuates the vital status of the environment, there is still no assurance to the validity of such policy. Therefore, this argument is unwarranted without