|
1、In addition, while it is true that many voters change their minds several times before voting, and that some remain undecided until entering the voting booth, this is not true of everyone. 2、Without knowing the extent and nature of the damage resulting from the bad publicity or the reason for the violation, we cannot accept the authors conclusion. 3、The authors proposal is inconsistent with the authors conclusion about the consequences of adopting an ethics code. 4、To begin with, the author fails to consider health threats posed by incinerating trash. 5、The authors conclusion that switching to incineration would be more salutary for public health would be seriously undermined. 6、However, this is not necessarily the case. 7、The authors implicit claim that incinerators are economically advantageous to landfills is poorly supported. 8、Consequently, unless the author can demonstrate that the city will incur expenses that are not covered by the increased revenues from these projects, the authors concern about these issues is unfounded. 9、First of all, while asserting that real incomes are rising, the author provides no evidence to support this assertion. 10、But no evidence is provided to show that this explanation is correct. | 
