argument137 写的越来越不顺了，努力拍

clearbabyUID: 2114410

------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分2秒     507 words—542 words
从2005年6月29日11时21分到2005年6月29日11时30分
------题目------
The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.
'At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.'
------正文------
In order to increase recreational use of Mason River, the arguer claims that Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. To support this argument, the arguer cites a survey that the region’s residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation. Furthermore, the arguer assumes that the decrease of recreational use is just because the quality of the water. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat logical. A careful examination of it, nonetheless, hardly can the reason be valid if only on the strength of this evidence.

To begin with, the survey is too vague to be credible. On one hand, we are not informed how many people were chosen in the report. It is possible that the amount of the surveyed people is too small to draw a convincing conclusion. For example, if only 10 people were chosen in the survey, the result of the report is unsound. On the other hand, the samples cited in the argument explain that water sports are their favorite form of recreation, while suggestive of this, is insufficient to warrant the truth because there is no reason to believe that the samples is representative of the whole groups. Perhaps the people are mostly young and strong, they like water sports such as swimming and boating. If so, 100 subjects were chosen but no more than 10 were valid, the conclusion would be highly suspect.

In addition, the arguer falsely depends on the gratuitous assumption that residents seldom use the river for recreational activity is just for they think the water in the river is not clean enough. Firstly, there is no evidence to demonstrate that they often recreated there before. It is possible that the water of the river is too deep, which is dangerous for holding activities. Secondly, even though they complain about the quality of the water, it is not equal to the water influence their water sports. Other possibilities are that the quality of water destroy the environment, the smell of the water is bad for people's health and so on. So the mere fact that people didn't recreate in the river is insufficient to draw the conclusion that it is because the quality of the water.

Finally, it is arbitrary for the arguer to conclude that recreational use of the river is likely to increase on the basis of increasing its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. Even we grant that the quality of water influence people's recreate, it only means that we should change the situation of the water, thus not the publicly owned lands along the river. Such as there are parks, toilets and all the relative instruments there, but the water is also what it was before. If so, the recreational use of the river will be still low. So the conclusion is unconvincing.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lacks reliability because the evidence quoted in the analysis does not support what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more valid, the arguer needs to make more effective and representative survey, such as the people's favorite recreational concourse, to support this argument.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-29 at 13:02 ]

clearbabyUID: 2114410

ding

clearbabyUID: 2114410

请指教下呀，自己总是看不出问题，必回拍，共同努力

clearbabyUID: 2114410

thx

GladysryUID: 198609

------正文------
In order to increase recreational use of Mason River, the arguer claims that Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. To support this argument, the arguer cites a survey that the region’s residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation. Furthermore, the arguer assumes that the decrease of recreational use is just because the quality of the water. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat logical. A careful examination of it, nonetheless, hardly can the reason be valid if only on the strength of this evidence.很典型的复述模板，最好改掉，详情参见imong斑斑的argument 三部精华。
To begin with, the survey is too vague to be credible. On one hand, we are not informed how many people were chosen in the report. It is possible that the amount of the surveyed people is too small to draw a convincing conclusion. For example, if only 10 people were chosen in the survey, the result of the report is嗯，是不是用一个表示趋势的词好一点？ unsound. On the other hand, the samples cited in the argument explain that water sports are their favorite form of recreation, while suggestive of this, is insufficient to warrant the truth because there is no reason to believe that the samples is representative of the whole groups. Perhaps the people are mostly young and strong, they like water sports such as swimming and boating. If so你想表示对前面的承接还是对后面的引出？“如果是这样……” 100 subjects were chosen but no more than 10 were valid, the conclusion would be highly suspect.

In addition, the arguer falsely depends on the gratuitous assumption that residents seldom use the river for recreational activity is just for they think the water in the river is not clean enough. 这一个理由？题中不是明确指出是quality of water 了么？Firstly, there is no evidence to demonstrate that they often recreated there before. It is possible that the water of the river is too deep, which is dangerous for holding activities. Secondly, even though they complain about the quality of the water, it is not equal to the water influence their water sports也不是水影响了他们的活动？？？？读起来好奇怪. Other possibilities are that the quality of water destroy the environment, the smell of the water is bad for people's health and so on. So the mere fact that people didn't recreate in the river is insufficient to draw the conclusion that it is because the quality of the water.

Finally, it is arbitrary for the arguer to conclude that recreational use of the river is likely to increase on the basis of increasing its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. Even we grant that the quality of water influence people's recreate, it only means that we should change the situation of the water, thus not the publicly owned lands along the river. Such as there are parks, toilets and all the relative instruments there, but the water is also what it was before. If so, the recreational use of the river will be still low这句话也有点不通顺。. So the conclusion is unconvincing.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoning and lacks reliability because the evidence quoted in the analysis does not support what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more valid, the arguer needs to make more effective and representative survey, such as the people's favorite recreational concourse, to support this argument.

的确感到写得不很顺。我是这样看的：
1，seldom use the river 有证据么？题目中没有提。
2，关于survey.
3,要开始计划，未必那条河上的休闲运动就会增加，还有其他的nearby river呢？比他的条件好，设施全，短时间内人们还不会来。
4， 就算都排除了，为什么要投资河岸边的土地？
恩，希望有所帮助。这个好像是不好写的样子。我还没怎么看提纲，看来得加紧了。