ARGUMENT

The argument states that, “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 years, 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 illness. If we elect Ann
Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be solved”. This argument
sounds illogical and doesn’t support the conclusion.
The first obvious defect of the argument is that, it does not point out the how Ann
Green will be a better choice for the post of mayor of Clearview. The argument is
incomplete in providing information about Ann Green and the work undertaken by her.
There is no mention about her activities in Good Earth Coalition, of which she is a
member. The argument also does not provide any statement or assertion from the
candidate that she will take up environmental issues if elected. Without such information,
the arguments assumption that Ann Green will be a good mayor for Clearview seems
farfetched.
The most glaring defect is that, the argument has failed to point out how the
current members of the town council have failed to protect the environment. The
argument ought to have said whether the town council has adopted any policy which, if
implemented, will cause degradation of the environment. The argument also should have
pointed out how Frank Braun voted on such a policy. Without such facts the argument
just assumes that Frank Braun and his fellow members at the town council don’t care
about the environment. Such an argument is incomplete and fallacious.
From the premise that, the number of industries have gone up, the argument has
concluded that the increased respiratory problems amongst the people of Clearview is
because of these industry’s activities, without providing any solid proof for it. The
argument fails to mention whether the industries release toxic waste into the air thereby
polluting it. This may be a reason for respiratory diseases. However there is no evidence
provided for the fact that these industries indulged in such activities thereby polluting the
environment. The argument also has failed to stress whether, the town council failed in its
duty, by giving a free hand to these industries. Thus the assertion of the argument seems
illogical.
To conclude, the argument is defective on the account of failing to expatiate on
the above defects. For example, Ann Green may not have any experience for handling the
responsibilities that come with a post like that of a mayor. The second point which the
argument failed to stress is about the policies of the town council which are supposed to
cause the environmental problems. Without such information the arguments assertion
that, Frank Braun, a member of the town council, will not be a good mayor is erroneous.
On the contrary, Frank Braun may have really good policies for the betterment of the
town. Finally, the argument fails to establish any connection between the growing
industries, the town council and the increasing respiratory problems. Having failed to
address the above defects the argument becomes untenable.