[a习作temp] Argument137, 请大家拍砖 [复制链接]

helen300300
UID：207069

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 13
注册时间: 2005-4-25
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-8-3 00:07:51 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

------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 this article, the author recommends that the Mason City council need to increase its budget to improve the publicity owned land along the Mason River. To support his or her recommendation, the author points out that surveys show that the region's residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation and the agency responsible for rivers in their region had announced plans to clean up Mason River as a result there would be more people to use the nearby Mason River for recreational activities. This article defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

First at all, the surveys upon which the author relies don't seem credible and effective. The author opines that the residents are consistently interested in water sports, but he provides no information about when the surveys were carried out, and the number of the surveys. Maybe the surveys were carried out before the Mason River became contaminated, or there were only two surveys that their region's residents took part in. It is entirely possible that people loved water sports before the Mason River were contaminated, whereas they don't like water sports now. We don't know who were involved in the surveys, maybe most of them were the youth but most people in Mason are old people now, or many of those involved in the surveys moved to the other regions and don't live in their region now. The surveys can't show that water sports remain Mason City residents' the favorite recreational activities now. Even assuming water sports are their current favorite form of recreation, we still can't claim there will be more people using the nearby Mason River for recreation activities, since people like water sports but they don't necessarily do sports on the Mason River. Maybe they prefer to go to the beaches playing in the ocean. To access his or her conclusion, the author needs to provide more specific information, or make a current survey on his/her own.

Second, the author says that the agency responsible for the Mason River had announced plans to clean up Mason River. However, we don't know the current situation of the Mason River. Maybe it is so dirty that we hardy can decontaminate it.
In addition, the agency just announced plans to clean up the river, but about efficiency of the agency we have no idea. When are the plans carried out, and how long should it take? Maybe it takes a fairly long time to recover the river from being polluted. As a result, people may be uninterested in water sports until then. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the author can't assert that there will be more people to use nearby Mason River for recreational activities.

Third, the author provides no evidence that the publicity owned lands for recreational use are required to be improved. Maybe the strand areas of the Mason River are large enough and the amenities in these areas are sufficient and consummate for people's recreational use. If this is so, it is not necessary to increase the budget for the improvement to the publicity owned lands along the Mason River.

In sum, to persuade me that the Mason River councils should increase the budget to improve the nearby areas of the Mason River for the recreational use, the author should provides more specific information about the surveys and the Mason River as well as the working efficiency of the agency.

回应
0

使用道具举报

sssky
UID：204142

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 194
注册时间: 2005-4-4
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2005-8-3 11:07:30 |只看该作者

------正文------
In this article, the author recommends that the Mason City council need to increase its budget to improve the publicity owned land along the Mason River. To support his or her recommendation, the author points out that surveys show that the region's residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation and the agency responsible for rivers in their region had announced plans to clean up Mason River as a result there would be more people to use the nearby Mason River for recreational activities. This article defies simple logic and suffers from several critical fallacies.

First at all,用first就行了吧,和下面的对应,而且好像是first of all 呵呵 the surveys upon which the author relies don't seem credible and effective. The author opines that the residents are consistently interested in water sports, but he provides no information about when the surveys were carried out, and the number of the surveys. Maybe the surveys were carried out before the Mason River became contaminated, or there were only two surveys that their region's residents took part in.不用直接假设只有两个人吧,呵呵,就说参加的人很少我觉得更加复合议论文的习惯,仅供参考呵呵 It is entirely possible that people loved water sports before the Mason River were contaminated, whereas they don't like water sports now. 分析的不错,呵呵我没想到We don't know who were involved in the surveys, maybe most of them were the youth but most people in Mason are old people now这句话表达的我觉得有点歧义,我明白你的意思,是说M的老人居多,但是你这样表达也会让人理解为调查是很久以前做的,现在过了很长时间了,人变老了...提供参考意见呵呵,不过我觉得还是换一种表达的好, or many of those involved in the surveys moved to the other regions and don't live in their region now. The surveys can't show that water sports remain Mason City residents' the favorite recreational activities now. Even assuming water sports are their current favorite form of recreation, we still can't claim there will be more people using the nearby Mason River for recreation activities, since people like water sports but they don't necessarily do sports on the Mason River. Maybe they prefer to go to the beaches playing in the ocean. To access his or her conclusion, the author needs to provide more specific information, or make a current survey on his/her own.你指出了调查的时效性,这个我以前一直没有考虑过,向你学习呵呵

Second, the author says that the agency responsible for the Mason River had announced plans to clean up Mason River. However, we don't know the current situation of the Mason River. Maybe it is so dirty that we hardy can decontaminate it.
In addition, the agency just announced plans to clean up the river, but about efficiency of the agency we have no idea. When are the plans carried out, and how long should it take? Maybe it takes a fairly long time to recover the river from being polluted. As a result, people may be uninterested in water sports until then. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the author can't assert that there will be more people to use nearby Mason River for recreational activities.

Third, the author provides no evidence that the publicity owned lands for recreational use are required to be improved. Maybe the strand areas of the Mason River are large enough and the amenities in these areas are sufficient and consummate for people's recreational use. If this is so, it is not necessary to increase the budget for the improvement to the publicity owned lands along the Mason River.

In sum, to persuade me that the Mason River councils should increase the budget to improve the nearby areas of the Mason River for the recreational use, the author should provides more specific information about the surveys and the Mason River as well as the working efficiency of the agency.

好文那,很值得我学习:)
后面两个body写的很好, 第三个是时间关系没有展开? 呵呵
互拍,指教:)
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=310699

使用道具举报