Clearview town mayoral election (GRE argument)

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."

The author has made some very critical assumptions to substantiate his/her view. But there are some serious flaws in this line of reasoning which needs to be addressed for this argument to be credible.

The author has stated that Frank Braun and the other members have not done a good job in protecting the environment. While this being a serious issue, there might also be a possibility that, this council might have done a better job in other aspects of the administration of the town like improving its infrastructure. Not voting in favour of the present council just based on this argument might not be the right decision.

The facts, which the author has provided to support his/her view, are also flawed. The number of factories might have increased two-fold, but the increase in the air pollution levels and the respiratory illnesses might have been caused because of some entirely different reason. There might be a possibility of increase in the number of vehicles in the town thus polluting the environment to a greater extent. The increase in the respiratory problems might also have been caused because of some other reasons such as increase in smoking practices among the citizens

Moreover, there is no clear-cut evidence, which suggests that Ann Green or the new council members will do any better than the present members in protecting the environment. It might as well turn out that the new council might fare worse than the present one in terms of the administration of the town.

Thus, in order to ratify this argument, the author has to include adequate facts and figures, which will support his/her stand on the issue. Substantial data regarding the credentials of the recommended candidate and the party and the flaws of the current council needs to be provided for this argument to be meritorious.

Good one.

I'm not sure if there are any more flaws left. Maybe, something about the work done by Good Earth Coalition; whether they are serious environmentalists, or some electoral upstart designed to bring votes.

I would write ...Moreover, there is no clear-cut evidence to suggest that...
A small change makes it clearer.

Also, at the beginning:
The author has made some very critical assumptions to substantiate his/her view. But there are some serious flaws in this line of reasoning which needs to be addressed for this argument to be credible.--- when you say assumptions, it sounds like you actually should be using the word "observations."

Also, some serious flaws in the line of reasoning, and these flaws need to be addressed in order to achieve a credible argument.

Anyway, you write very well and made a good argument. I think this is a solid essay.