Argument137【Persistence小组】第16次作业

小驴子UID: 2222683

137.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."

The editorial recommends that the Mason City council need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River because recreational use of the river is likely to increase. The recommendation is based on the following reasons. Surveys of the region’s residents show that people like water sports is their favorite form of recreation. However, the quality of the water in the river is not clean and people have to avoid the river. In order to change the situation, the agency responsible for rivers has announced plans to clean up the Mason River. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

The prerequisite of the argument is that recreational use of the river is likely to increase because the quality of the water in Mason River would improve. No clear evidence could prove the point. Although according to surveys, water sports is their favorite recreation among other sport, the river has not been used for a long time and whether people are willing to do water sports on it is not known. What's more, Mason River itself might not be suitable for doing water sports. It might contain large stones or its water speed might be too fast to do any sports. The quality of the water might not even be the main problem.

In addition, whether the agency responsible for rivers in this region can totally clean up the river and make it suitable for people doing water sports are still questionable. It all depends on how serious it been polluted and the work rate of the agency. If the water has already been polluted by some chemical materials which could not be easily cleaned, it still cannot be fit for recreation on it. The agency responsible for rivers might only announced the plans and might not even make it into practice, which also cannot increase the recreational use of the river.

At last, whether to increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is necessary need to discuss. The editorial is not familiar with the situation and makes the decision that the city needs money for lands along the river so quickly. Even if the quality of the water could improve to people's recreational use, spending money on its surround lands might be a waste. The editorial mentioned the complaints about the quality of the water; however, it did not mention the complaints about the lands along the river. It is entirely possible that the lands along the Mason River are good enough and there is no need to improve it.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the reporter must provide clear evidence that whether people would like to do recreation on the river after it being cleaned up. I would also need to know whether increase the budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the river is necessary.

vinnieUID: 2104933

137.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."
The editorial recommends that the Mason City council need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River because recreational use of the river is likely to increase. The recommendation is based on the following reasons. Surveys of the region’s residents show that people like water sports is their favorite form of recreation. However, the quality of the water in the river is not clean and people have to avoid the river. In order to change the situation, the agency responsible for rivers has announced plans to clean up the Mason River. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.（开头写的好好，简明扼要）

The prerequisite of the argument is that recreational use of the river is likely to increase because the quality of the water in Mason River would improve. No clear evidence could prove the point. Although according to surveys, water sport is their favorite recreation among other sport(s), the river has not been used for a long time and whether people are willing to do water sports on it is not known.(whether后面的内容有点问题) What's more, Mason River itself might not be suitable for doing water sports. It might contain large stones or its water speed might be too fast to do any sports. The quality of the water might not even be the main problem.

In addition, whether the agency responsible for rivers in this region can totally clean up the river and make it suitable for people doing water sports are still questionable. It all depends on how serious it been polluted and the work rate of the agency. If the water has already been polluted by some chemical materials which could not be easily cleaned, it still cannot be fit for recreation on it. The agency responsible for rivers might only announced the plans and might not even make it into practice, which also cannot increase the recreational use of the river.

At last, whether to increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is necessary need to discuss. The editorial is not familiar with the situation and makes the decision that the city needs money for lands along the river so quickly. Even if the quality of the water could improve to people's recreational use, spending money on its surround lands might be a waste. The editorial mentioned the complaints about the quality of the water; however, it did not mention the complaints about the lands along the river. It is entirely possible that the lands along the Mason River are good enough and there is no need to improve it.

In sum, the recommendation relies on certain doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the reporter must provide clear evidence that whether people would like to do recreation on the river after it being cleaned up. I would also need to know whether (to) increase the budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the river is necessary.
没什么问题，和我写的思路也差不多，看来大家ARGUE都麻木了