[a习作temp] argument 137 （baxia小组作业） [复制链接]

wwiliam
UID：2185333

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 135
注册时间: 2006-2-11
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-2-24 14:32:31 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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."
提纲：1、未必需要政府增加财政支出，这片公共场所未必需要改善，
2、管河的机构计划未必就要实现, 实行未必有效，有效未必人们想法就会改观，改观了未必会去
3、此河未必适合水上运动
The editorial recommends the Mason City council to invest in the publicly owned lands along the Mason River due to the plans of the agency responsible for this river, whereas I strongly disagree with him. In my view, it is not necessary for the council to increase its budget to improve those lands.

To begin with, the editorial has not given evidence to support the need for the investment of the council. The council may not has ability to increase its budget for those land, there may be some more important things for it to pay for, such as the standard of its public education and sanitation remain in the low level, it is high time for the council to improve them. Another feasible method is that improvement of those lands can be financed by private enterprises which earn money from the recreational activity in this river or this fund can come from public financing.
Besides, it is doubtful that lands along the Mason River should be greatly improved. Those lands may be extremely well that it is excrescent to increase budget for them. Moreover, maybe there is no relation between the recreational activity in Mason River and those publicly owned lands, so it is unnecessary to improve them.

Next, the editorial also cites the plans, in which the agency responsible for Mason River, announces to clean up Mason River, to confirm the trend that recreational use of the river is likely to increase. It is obvious that the editorial has made a serious mistake in logic. Although the agent announces plans to clean up the river, it remains in unknown that those plans will be put in practice. The effort of those plans is also unknown. Even if those plans can greatly improve the condition of the river, people may be use to do some recreational activities in other places, and the habit of a person is hardly to be changed. Furthermore, it is uncertain that people will go for recreational activities, although they rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation, they can enjoy them in the computer games or TV programs.

By the way, the little recreational use of the river may not result from its bad water quality. other characters may deduce this result, such as this river may be too narrow and too fleet for people to do any activity in it or the water of this river flows in a extremely high speed, it is impossible for people to do any recreational activities.

In sum, the recommendation provided by the editorial is unpersuasive as it stands. The facts he cites are not support it in logic. He should provide more evidence to approve the logical relation between those facts and the recommendation so as to convince people of his suggestion.