====================Argument===================
Argument137（2005年2-9月总频24次）
【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."
【翻译】当前，Mason市很少利用附近的Mason河来进行娱乐活动，尽管对该地区居民的几次调查一直指出他们把水上运动（游泳、垂钓和划船）作为他们最喜欢的娱乐形式。由于曾经存在对于这条河水质的投诉，居民一定是因为他们认为河水不够干净才不在这里活动。但这种情况就会改变了：我们地区负责河流管理的部门公布了澄清Mason河的计划。因此，河流的娱乐用途很可能将会增加，因而Mason市的市委有必要增加用于改善Mason河沿岸公共土地的预算。
【参考分析】
137.use the River for recreational activity 论断：政府需要为河边的公共场所的改善增加支出，因为河上娱乐可能会上升。目前居民很少用河进行娱乐，尽管对他们的调查一直说这是他们最喜欢的娱乐方式。由于一直有关于河水质量的抱怨，居民必须避开河水。不过这种情况会有改变，负责我们这个区的机构宣布了清理河的计划。 •前提，河水干净了河上娱乐会上升。尽管论者本地居民一直把水上运动列为他们最喜欢的运动，但由于长时间很少有人使用它，我们并不知道居民是否愿意在M河上进行这种娱乐。M河有可能不适合。 •前提，河水会干净。机构宣布了计划，不一定河水就能干净，污染程度，还有工作效率，都不一定能达到标准。 •结论，公共场所需要改进吗？不一定吧。结论：这篇社论没有了解当地情况，也不知道前景如何，政府的决策还需考虑
【提纲】
1、尽管调查显示居民喜欢河上娱乐，但不代表就会在M河娱乐，M河有可能不适合
2、河管部门宣布治理M河，不代表M河就一定能干净，清理效果如何还有待观察
3、即使M河清理干净了，M河的河上娱乐也不一定会上升，有可能居民并不信任清理结果，长时间不在M河运动已经不喜欢了等等
4、即使M河娱乐上升，也不一定要增加改善M河沿岸公共土地的预算，增加公共土地未必有利于娱乐业的发展，也许是浪费呢，还需要进一步考察
【正文】（470words）
In the editorial, the arguer claims that the Mason City council needs to increase its budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, according to the plans of cleaning up Mason River announced by the agency of the rivers . However, a carefull scrutiny reveals that the argument is not so convincing as it stands, which I will expain from several aspects below.
First of all, the evidence that the residents in the region always consider water sports such as swimming, fishing, and boating as a favorite form of recreation according to the surveys lends little support to the argument . It does not necessarily lead to the increase of the amusing performance on the Mason River. Perhaps, the people prefer indoor water games or it is also likely that there is another river with great quality near the region and is much more suitable for people in the Mason City to go for water sports.
Next, the mere fact that the agency of the river has planned to clean up Mason River could not convince us that the quality of Mason River will surly become improved. For example, it is possible that the project will not be so effective that it wouldn’t change the condition of the river. It is also highly possible that the project may be cancelled or ceased for the reasons that the capital is limited and so on. Also, we could not guarrented that after the plan taken, there would not be pollution to make the river dirty any more. Unless ruling out all the possibilities talked above, the argument which belives that the bad situation of the river is about to change seems rather hasty and unwarrented.
In additon, the premise, the change of Mason River will certainly bring a big increase of its recreational use, is also open to doubt. The impress that the river has long be polluted may still stay in residents’ mind, which prevents people to go for amusement on the Mason River. （这段似乎有点少，但想不出来怎么写了）
Finally, before I come to the conclusion, it is necessary to point about another flaw in the argument. Given the recreational use of the river is consequently increased, it is may not be necessary for the Mason City council to increase the budget of the public lands along the river. Because this increment of budget may turn out to be a waste of money or even do harm to the recreation of the river. Therefore, the argument of adding budget seems rather doubtable before a carefull investigation.
In sum, the arugment is unwarrented due to the explain above. Whether to increase the budget or not, the Mason City council should first see the result of the plans announced by the agency, and then do further careful investigation to the residents attitudes towards the river.作者: 智恩 时间: 2006-1-23 21:45:50
In the editorial, the arguer claims that the Mason City council needs to increase its budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, according to the plans of cleaning up Mason River announced by the agency of the rivers . However, a carefull scrutiny reveals that the argument is not so convincing as it stands, which I will expain from several aspects below.
First of all, the evidence that the residents in the region always consider water sports such as swimming, fishing, and boating as a favorite form of recreation according to the surveys lends little support to the argument . It does not necessarily lead to the increase of the amusing performance on the Mason River. Perhaps, the people prefer indoor water games【最好举个例子更有说服力我都没想到有什么indoor water games，难道是在室内游泳，因为在河里游太不卫生了容易感染细菌？】 or it is also likely that there is another river with great quality near the region and is much more suitable for people in the Mason City to go for water sports.
Next, the mere fact that the agency of the river has planned to clean up Mason River could not convince us that the quality of Mason River will surly become improved. For example, it is possible that the project will not be so effective that it wouldn’t change the condition of the river. It is also highly possible that the project may be cancelled or ceased for the reasons that the capital is limited and so on. Also, we could not guarrented【guarantee】 that after the plan taken, there would not be pollution【there would be no pollution，这样表达要通顺些】 to make the river dirty any more. Unless ruling out all the possibilities talked above, the argument which belives that the bad situation of the river is about to change seems rather hasty and unwarrented.
In additon, the premise, the change of Mason River will certainly bring a big increase of its recreational use, is also open to doubt. The impress【impression】 that the river has long be【been】 polluted may still stay in residents’ mind, which prevents people to go for amusement on the Mason River. （这段似乎有点少，但想不出来怎么写了） 【再写点可能已经不喜欢那些娱乐方式了】
Finally, before I come to the conclusion, it is necessary to point about【out】 another flaw in the argument. Given the recreational use of the river is consequently increased, it is 【去掉is，好像写得有点急，犯了不少低级错误:lol】may not be necessary for the Mason City council to increase the budget of the public lands along the river. Because this increment of budget may turn out to be a waste of money or even do harm to the recreation of the river. Therefore, the argument of adding budget seems rather doubtable before a carefull investigation.
In sum, the arugment is unwarrented due to the explain【explaination】 above. Whether to increase the budget or not, the Mason City council should first see the result of the plans announced by the agency, and then do further careful investigation to the residents attitudes towards the river.
我只就论证方面和你讨论一下，语法方面就不说拉！^_^
1 首先，我觉得既然是攻击调查就应该顺便提一下the size, randomness, representative of the sample,调查是否反映了居民的真实想法？第二，我觉得indoor water games 不是太好,可以是因为the transformation of theirpropensity,e.g. climbing, football, basketball, movie, theater等 第三，你的another river with great quality很好，我想到了可是忘了写
2 这点每个人都写了，但是批驳的角度不同，我批的是plans的具体内容没说，即使effective未必有效执行，政府未必有足够的资金进行河水治理
3 这点其实很好批，即使河水干净了水上娱乐活动一定增加吗？天气太冷－swimming;水位太低－boating;鱼很少，都去过冬了－fishing,对吧？^_^
4 你说即使水上娱乐活动增加，budget未必增加，因为这可能是浪费，这不是等于没说吗？我的角度是，可能早就有很多游乐场along the river，可能政府没钱，可能这些土地的改善促进了其它娱乐而不是水上娱乐（不好意思这两个我文章里面没说）
欢迎你的反讨论！呵呵^_^作者: jingjingtous 时间: 2006-1-23 22:47:58