[a习作temp] argument137 必回拍。。 [复制链接]

vprzhs
UID：144409

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 719
注册时间: 2003-9-6
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-31 23:21:26 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument137  第14篇让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户    共用时间：30分2秒    377 words
从2005年6月31日20时30分到2005年6月31日21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------
Before we accept the conclusion reached in the argument, the evidence given in the argument should have to be examined from several other angles.

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that the agency can fully clean up Mason River. The mere fact that the agency has announced plans to clean up the river does not mean that they can actually succeed. In addition, even if the agency is eager to change the situation of the river, but it is very likely that it lack enough money to support this plan. What's more, their plans to clean up Mason River might affect the normal lives of local residents. Perhaps they disagree the way how the agency tries to clean up the river.

Moreover, it is unwarranted to assume that recreational use of the river is likely to increase. For one thing, the arguer provide no evidence that better improvements of the publicly owned lands along the Mason River can attract more persons to play around the river or in the river. For another, residents rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation, it does not follow that they take into account the situation of the public lands along the Mason Rivers. It is possible that they would still do some sports in the river if they plan to, without considering the environment around the river.

Last but not least, there is no guarantee that people would choose to play in Mason River just because of its better water quality. There are numerous factors are ignored by the arguer. On the one hand, residents might have to consider the distance between their home and Mason River. If the river is far from many persons' houses, it is possible that people would be reluctant to go there because of the long distance. On the other hand, we doubt that whether Mason River charge from visitors, and that how much it might charge. If it asks the visitors to pay high fees, it might be follow that most of residents would go to other cheaper rivers or rivers for free.

To sum up, the analysis is not well reasoned. To bolster the argument, the arguer might have to rule out any other possibilities which might weaken the conclusion.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-31 at 23:27 ]

05.10.22 。。。。
～～广外～～