[a习作temp] Argument137 留链必回拍！ [复制链接]

Ram
UID: 2181763

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 82
注册时间: 2006-2-2
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-3-1 15:21:53 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

题目：ARGUMENT 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."
字数：402 用时：上午 0:30:00 日期：2006-3-1

The arguer recommends that much more budget should be needed for lands along the Mason River based on the evidence that the water sports are the favorite forms of recreation of the region's residents and the quality of Mason River would become much better. The claim seems to be reasonable at the first glance; however, with a careful consideration one would find that it suffers several flaws as follow:

To begin with, the arguer fails to convince us that it is because of the quality of the water in the river that makes the region's residents give up their favorite forms of recreation. Firstly, the arguer considers the favorite forms of recreation depends on surveys while providing not any details about the surveys, such as the number of people involved in the surveys, the questions he/she asked and the age groups of those people. Secondly, the arguer unjustly assumes that the decrease of people playing in the river is because of the quality of the river.

In addition, the arguer unreasonable assumes that the quality of the river will become better since the agency responsible for the rivers has announced plans to clean up Mason River. In common sense, the result of a case doesn't always equate to the plan, the arguer should provide more evidence that the plan will really work on the quality of the river.

Even if the region's residents really favor the recreation of water sports and the quality of the river will become much better, it is still unnecessary to make a rush decide about increasing the budget for the lands along the Mason River. People may take a long time to believe that the quality of the river is really as good as to playing in it. And maybe it is not the proper season when the quality change is done, and people may not join the water sports in a short time. Much more detail about the plan is also needed to make sure the plan's effectivity.

To conclude, the reasons used to support the arguer's declaim are not existed any more through the analysis above. The arguer should need more detail-such as, the validity of the plan, the real reason for people's avoiding the river, the cost and time that the change plan will take-before he/she invest the budget on the lands along the Mason River. The more detailed provided, the more reasonable the claim will be.