[a习作temp] 模考第四天-ARGUMENT137 [复制链接]

wisle
UID: 2578616

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 28
寄托币: 1991
注册时间: 2008-12-3
精华: 0
帖子: 7

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-8 17:39:18 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 wisle 于 2009-8-8 17:41 编辑

TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - The following appearedin an editorial in the Mason Citynewspaper.

"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason Riverfor any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region'sresidents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as afavorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the qualityof the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because theythink that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: theagency 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 forimprovements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."
WORDS: 458
TIME: 超时
DATE: 2009-8-8下午 03:24:21
看过的童鞋就吭个声，点评一下吧！

====================================================

The arguer sets upa well logical conclusion that recreational use of Mason Riverand the city council should improve the public owned lands along the river,through two parallel reasoning: seldom use the river with water sports as thefavorite recreations, and complaints about the quality of the water in river.However, it turns out that, if look critically, unstable buttresses weaken theconclusion.

At the first step,it is indispensable to discern the central concept of this reasoning: the lowquality of the water in Mason River lead the seldom useof the river for recreations, although the water sports are their favorites. Itis reasonable to question that whether the real reason of the seldom use of theriver is the water quality. The arguer makes this assertion by the formercomplaints and the favorite sports rank. Factually, even there are somecomplaints about the water quality, the reason for seldom use of the rivermaybe is the quality of the river itself, such as rapid water, the depth of thewater, instead of the water quality. For example, the still water is good forboating and swimming. However, if the water in river is rapid, it is dangerousto swim there and also unsuitable for boating. So far as these concerns can beclarified, the assertion is more defensible.

Next, by checkingup the rest of this reasoning, our attentions focus on the announced plans toclean up the river. Even if the major reason for seldom use of the river is thewater quality, we can boldly speculate that whether the plan can solve theproblem. If the pollutions continually flow to the river in Mason from the upper reaches, even if the plane works well, sooneror later the water quality will go down as before. Besides, the water qualityalso depends on the unremitting protection afterthe implementing the plan. Therefore this assertion is crippling, unlessfurther explanation of the plan can be offered.

As the ultimatestep, the illation that city councils should improve the publicly owned landsalong the Mason River is still open to question. Infact, the arguer affirms this assertion on the basis of the missing premisesthat the lands along the river also influence the recreations in the river andthe publicly owned lands are in a bad condition. In fact, without actualexplanations for these missing premises, it is reasonable to assume that theselands are good enough; there is no need to improve. Thus the assertion is a farcry from being proved.

Simply put, theevidences cited in this argument are not competent for this conclusion. Afterall, an incorrect conclusion will lead an unexpected waste rather than gain abig cake.

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册

ARGUMENT137, wisle