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 urrent members are not protecting our environment. Furthermore, the environment c
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 ruling out such possibility.
Another problem that weakens the logic of this argument is that the arguer’s statement
depends on the assumption that no factor other than the current council caused the pollution level increasing. However, commonsense informs me that this factor including the awareness of the citizens or the development of the technology might just as likely be the cause of environmental pollution. Without eliminating these and other possible factors, the author cannot justifiably conclude that only Ann Green council can substitute the current Frank Braun to settle the critical environment.
Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to indicate another flaw involved in this argument that by concluding that the residents of the Clearview must elect Frank Braun or must advocate Ann Green, the author commits a fallacy of false dilemma. The arguer assumes that Ann Green and Frank Braun are the only available selection to the mayoral election. However, it is possible that other candidates who might also participate the election are the superior choice for the construction of the Clearview and especially propitious to the protection of the environment. Thus, the survey cited here is too vague to be informative. The author provides on assurances that the date on which the argument depend is statistically reliable. The statement demonstrates that 25 percent more patients with respiratory illnesses, nevertheless, they fails to provide information regarding the absolute number of the patients.
To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that the residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green rather than Frank Braun in the next mayoral election, because the evidences cited in the argument do not led strong support to what the arguer maintains. To make this argument more appealing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to the predominance优势 of the Ann Green. Therefore, if the argument had
included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically