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 frank braun, a member of the clearvew town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For ex, during the past year, the number of factories in clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have increased and the local hospital has treated 25% more patients with respiratory illness. If we elect ann green , the prob of environment will certainly be solved

The editor recommends the residents of Clearview to vote for Ann green, a member of good earth , rather than voting for frank Braun ,a member of the clearview town council. to bolster his recommendation, the speaker cites the increase in the number of factories ,air pollution level and the number of respiratory illness people. based on these assertions, the editor infers that the current members of the council are incompetent to solve the environmental problems faced by the people of clear view. I agree insofar with the speakers broad assertion that the environmental problems have heightened from the past years, nevertheless , the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion by embracing the fact that the current members are solely responsible for these problems. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.. To begin with, the author unfairly suggests that the increase in the number of factories in clear view is only because of the councils decision, and not because of any other possible reason. My chief reason for my disagreement is that the suggestion runs contrary to the overwhelming evidence that the concept of demand and supply changes with time. May be, there was an increase in demand of the manufactured products amongst the city members which doubled the number of factories in that area and this factor might have proved worthwhile.Thus, this suggestion is simply wrongheaded. A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is that the increase in the number of respiratory illness patients is solely because of the increasing environmental problems. But the letter fails to substantiate this crucial assumption that this increase could have been due to the increasing awareness among the people of clearview about their respiratory problems. Perhaps, this increase might also be due to the influx of people with such pre-existing respiratory problems, or due to the effective cigarette market. Even if the town cited increase has lead to worsening of the environment, still it lends no lends no credible explication that Frank Braun was solely responsible for that. It might happened that Braun had protested against the council members who were encouraging such acts, but failed to do so because of some reasons. Even assuming that Braun was partially responsible for that, the letter gives no clear evidence that Green would be able to reverse that trend and lend a credible support for the amelioration of the environment. The mere fact that green is a member of the Good earth coalition hardly suffices to prove that Green would be a better performer than Brauk, at least not without her willingness to work, knowledge about the current problems and innovative and practical way to handle those. Finally, even if Green is more effective in handling problems than Brauk, the editor has not provided firm evidences to prove that electing Green would be a better solution or electing Green would be suffice. perhaps, electing any third person or re-appointing the members of

the Clearview town council could also be a possible solution to this problem. In sum, the editorials author cannot justify his recommendations on the scant evidences provided in the editorial. And beyond his concession, however, I find the speakers contention indefensible from both an empirical and a normative standpoint Thus, the argument is logically flawed in many aspects and therefore unconvincing and unpersuasive as it stands . To bolster the recommendation, the author must provide better evidences that: 1> 2> To better assess the argument, i need to know Brouns record of environmental issues, Greens experiences and voters third person choices, besides Green and braun.