[a习作temp] Argument137 Kito小组作业贴多谢修改^-^ [复制链接]

bunnymz2005
UID：2146758

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 718
注册时间: 2005-10-11
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-1-24 01:40:25 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

【题目】
Argument137（2005年2-9月总频24次）
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."
************************************************************************************
【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。
************************************************************************************
【提纲】
1. 居民不一定是因为Mason河的水质不好才不在那里活动，虽然有水质投诉，可是作者没有说明投诉的时间，可能是很久以前，而现在已经没有了。而且常识告诉我们饮用的水和使用的水的水质的要求是不一样的，作者没有告诉我们水质到底是什么样的，也许它只是不适合饮用，而对于使用来说是没问题的。另外也作者没有考虑到其他因素，如交通不便，居民自身比较忙。也可能市里有湖泊等等可以进行水上运动。
2.我们应该注意到相关部门只是公布了清理Mason河的计划，现在的问题是计划能不能实现，实现的效果如何？可能跟技术水平有关，还可能水质太差了根本清理不好。
3. 即便河水清理好了，在这里娱乐的居民也不见得会增多。像上边说的如果居民不是因为水质不好才不再那里活动，那么水清理好了根本不会有任何影响。在这里我们假设由于某种原因人数的确多了，Mason市市委就应该增加预算么？不见得吧。
************************************************************************************
【正文】
Prior to choosing to increase budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River, the evidence presented in this argument requires a close scrutiny from several aspects. The author seems to have posited that the residents who avoid using the river for recreation tend to change their minds if the quality of river is improved and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.

First of all, as the author implies, the complaints about the quality of the water in the Mason River must be the reason why residents rarely do any sports in the river. However, it may not be the case. In one sense, as to the complaints, the author provides no evidence about when and how often it comes about. It is entirely possible that the residents only complained twice about the water ten years ago but today there are none. Furthermore, common sense tells us that the requirements on the water used for drinking and for using are not the same. For that matter, we have good reasons to assume that the residents just complain that the water in the river is not potable but actually still suitable for using. In another sense, the author fails to take into account the other factors such as the residents themselves. There is a good chance that the residents in Mason City are such busy at work that they cannot have any recreational activities. Since the author fails to respond to these concerns, the assumption that the quality of the water is poor and therefore not appeals to the residents is untenable.

In addition, we might also consider the plan that the agency which is in charge of the rivers in the city announces to clean up the Mason River. Since it is only a plan, we may doubt whether the plan can be carried out or even effective. It is likely that the agency never takes actions to realize this plan because of the problems in finance and fund. Or perhaps the workers who are responsible for this project lack essential techniques to finish cleaning the river effectively and efficiently. Moreover, the author also fails to account for the condition of the river itself. For example, the river may be contaminated severely for many years and can not be improved any more. If so, then any measures for cleaning the river only tend to be in vain.

Finally, even assuming that the river is clean again due to the agency's excellent work, it is nevertheless perfunctory to conclude that the recreational use of the river is going to increase. If the situation is that whether the residents use the river does not rely on the quality of the river, then the clean water makes not sense in attracting people and thus increasing the recreational use of the river. Besides, even if the residents favor the lucid water in the river and feel like doing activities in it, the author still do not provide any evidence to demonstrate that the government should increase the budgets for improving the publicly owned land along the river. Perhaps the government has more urgent things to deal with such as the terrorist, poverty, unemployment and so forth. Or perhaps the land along the river is good enough and not needed improvements at all. Hence, absent the information about the government and the publicly owned land along the river, the author's conclusion is premature at best.

To sum up, the argument is weakened by the flaws discussed above. In order to better evaluate it, the author should provide the evidence that the quality of the water in the river does determine its use for recreations in it. Moreover, before making a decision about the budges the author should account for more information about the city government and the effect it brings about.

Forge ahead, never retreat!

回应
0

使用道具举报

bunnymz2005
UID：2146758

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 718
注册时间: 2005-10-11
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2006-2-1 20:57:52 |只看该作者

up!帮忙改一下啦~~~留下链接哦

Forge ahead, never retreat!

使用道具举报

lawrence1984
UID：178326

超级会员

Rank: 7 Rank: 7 Rank: 7

声望: 9
寄托币: 5369
注册时间: 2004-9-12
精华: 0
帖子: 26

板凳

发表于 2006-2-2 14:26:03 |只看该作者

Argument137 Kito小组作业贴多谢修改^-^

【题目】
Argument137（2005年2-9月总频24次）
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."
************************************************************************************
【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。
************************************************************************************
【提纲】
1. 居民不一定是因为Mason河的水质不好才不在那里活动，虽然有水质投诉，可是作者没有说明投诉的时间，可能是很久以前，而现在已经没有了。而且常识告诉我们饮用的水和使用的水的水质的要求是不一样的，作者没有告诉我们水质到底是什么样的，也许它只是不适合饮用，而对于使用来说是没问题的。另外也作者没有考虑到其他因素，如交通不便，居民自身比较忙。也可能市里有湖泊等等可以进行水上运动。
2.我们应该注意到相关部门只是公布了清理Mason河的计划，现在的问题是计划能不能实现，实现的效果如何？可能跟技术水平有关，还可能水质太差了根本清理不好。
3. 即便河水清理好了，在这里娱乐的居民也不见得会增多。像上边说的如果居民不是因为水质不好才不再那里活动，那么水清理好了根本不会有任何影响。在这里我们假设由于某种原因人数的确多了，Mason市市委就应该增加预算么？不见得吧。（提纲没有什么问题了。）
************************************************************************************
【正文】
Prior to choosing to increase budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River, the evidence presented in this argument requires a close scrutiny from several aspects. The author seems to have posited that the residents who avoid using the river for recreation tend to change their minds if the quality of river is improved and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.（很好！）

First of all, as the author implies, the complaints about the quality of the water in the Mason River must be the reason why residents rarely do any sports in the river. However, it may not be the case. In one sense, as to the complaints, the author provides no evidence about when and how often it comes about. It is entirely possible that the residents only complained twice about the water ten years ago but today there are none.（第一点的驳斥到这里没有大问题了） Furthermore, common sense tells（informs） us that the requirements on the water used for drinking and for using are（not 改称hardly我觉得native点，你斟酌着看吧！） not the same. For that matter, we have good reasons to assume that the residents just complain that the water in the river is not potable（用得很好！） but actually still suitable for using. In another sense, the author fails to take into account the（去掉the） other factors such as the residents themselves. There is a good chance that the residents in Mason City are such（so） busy at work that they cannot have any recreational activities. Since the author fails to respond to these concerns, the assumption that the quality of the water is poor and therefore not appeals to the residents is untenable.（段落结构完善，驳斥细节具体，没有大问题。）

In addition, we might also consider the plan that the agency （which is in charge of the rivers in the city ）（当修饰语太长时，适当的用非限制性定语从句，即加逗号会使文章更地道！！你考虑着采纳吧！）announces to clean up the Mason River. Since it is only a plan, we may doubt whether the plan can be carried out or effective. It is likely that the agency never takes actions to realize this plan because of the problems in finance and fund. Or perhaps the workers who are responsible for this project lack essential techniques to finish cleaning the river effectively and efficiently. Moreover, the author also fails to account for the condition of the river itself. For example, the river may be contaminated severely for many years and can not be improved any more. If so, then any measures for cleaning the river only tend to be in vain. （逻辑严密！好！）

Finally, even assuming that the river is clean again due to the agency's excellent work, it is nevertheless perfunctory to conclude that the recreational use of the river is going to increase. If the situation is that whether the residents use the river does not rely on the quality of the river, then the clean water makes not （no）sense in attracting people and thus increasing the recreational use of the river. Besides, even if the residents favor the lucid water in the river and feel like doing activities in it, the author still do not provide any evidence to demonstrate that the government should increase the budgets for improving the publicly owned land along the river. Perhaps the government has more urgent things to deal with such as the terrorist, poverty, unemployment and so forth. Or perhaps the land along the river is good enough and not needed improvements at all. Hence, absent the information about the government and the publicly owned land along the river, the author's conclusion is premature at best.（这段写得很漂亮！）

To sum up, the argument is weakened by the flaws discussed above. In order to better evaluate it, the author should provide the evidence that the quality of the water in the river does determine its use for recreations in it. Moreover, before making a decision about the budges the author should account for more information about the city government and the effect it brings about.
你的文章的模版已经很好了，但是我一直认为段落开头的连接词不是很好，还可以换换，不过这不会很影响了，继续努力，真的很棒了！

使用道具举报