[a习作temp] argument137 [天下无G] 第十八次作业 [复制链接]

jacana
UID：2292520

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 192
注册时间: 2007-1-15
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-2-23 22:46:42 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - 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."
WORDS: 600 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2007-2-23

The recommendation proposes in the editorial is that the Mason City (MC) council need to increase its budget from improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MC river for the reason that some evidence indicates that the use for recreational activities on Mc river is likely to increase. However, close scrutiny would reveal that the reasoning is deficient to support a credible conclusion.

To begin with, a threshold assumption upon with the argument relies is that people of MC do like water sports. Only by survey the report claiming that residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation is insufficient to substantiate the assumption. It is highly possible that people in MC prefer watching water sports games, but barely tries it themselves, for the consideration of money, time, physique, and so on. Therefore, the author's assertion that recreational use of the river will increase is totally unfounded.

Even assuming that residents of MC love do water sports themselves, the author fails to convince us that they will go to MC River for these sports once the river is clean again. It is equally possible that there are already many alternatives for the residents and they might not bother to change a place for recreational activities. For instance, their may be several swimming pools and other facilities for fishing and boating in MC, with excellent shower rooms and strong security protection, which can barely acquire in the river. What is more, the outdoor sports places may not suitable for every one; the strong sun light might burn the skin and even cause cancer. Under these circumstances, there might be a considerable amount of people prefer to go to the original places for recreation activities. Therefore, the assumption that recreational use of the river is likely to increase is unwarranted.

Another flaw that undermines the logic of the argument is that there is no assurance that the water condition can be reversed. Although the agency promises to clean up MC River, as we know, it is difficult to amelioration than destruction. It is doubtful that if it can accomplish their goal or the cleaning up work will last for how long. Without these information, it is difficult to judge the water condition in the following years. As a consequence, promoting the council to increase its budget on the lands along the river is too soon to be accepted.

Before I come to my conclusion, another weak point that defeats the conclusion is that whether the lands along the river need to be improved. As there will be more people come to the river, the facilities along the river are surly essential. Nevertheless, without providing the information about the publicly owned lands at present, it is hastily to increase budget for them. Perhaps the lands have already well equipped. Hence, it is unreasonable for adding budgets on it. Maybe the facilities on the publicly owned lands is not enough for a large amount of people, however, considering that the water condition has not changed, and there will not be people in a short time, there is still unnecessary for increasing budgets now. The council can make the decision later.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it is presumpuous for the author to asset that the MC council should increase its budget for improving the lands along the river. To make his recommendation logically acceptable, the author would have to provide further information on the residents sports activities. The schedule of the cleaning process and the condition of the publicly owned lands along the river are also crucial when weighing the situation.

回应
0

使用道具举报

ernest81888
UID：2247639

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 1
寄托币: 7
注册时间: 2006-8-31
精华: 0
帖子: 95

沙发

发表于 2007-2-23 23:18:07 |只看该作者

第2个攻击点感觉不妥,既然说了DECLINE,为什么还要去怀疑他们是否....
我觉得关于DECLINE 你可以这样写.

In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that an deteriorated quailty is the only reason results in the declined recreational activity. However, the aruger supplies no evidence to support the assumption. While the pullution of the MC river might be an important reason to explain the reason of such a decline, but it is hardly the only one. Perhaps it is because of the cold weather condition that provent resident enjoying acitivities besides the river.For that matter, how could MC's residents take activity as swiming or fishing when they are facing with a frozen water? Without ruling out other possilbility that could contribute the declined activity trend, the arguer's recommendation would amount to especailly poor advice.

使用道具举报

askme
UID：2264776

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 506
注册时间: 2006-10-21
精华: 0
帖子: 1

板凳

发表于 2007-2-24 15:34:37 |只看该作者

The recommendation proposes in the editorial is that the Mason City (MC) council need to increase its budget from improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MC river for the reason that some evidence indicates that the use for recreational activities on Mc river is likely to increase. However, close scrutiny would reveal that the reasoning is deficient to support a credible conclusion.

To begin with, a threshold assumption upon with the argument relies is that people of MC do like water sports. Only by survey the report claiming that residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation is insufficient to substantiate the assumption. It is highly possible that people in MC prefer watching water sports games, but barely tries it themselves, for the consideration of money, time, physique, and so on. Therefore, the author's assertion that recreational use of the river will increase is totally unfounded.
这一段攻击得比较出乎我的意料，至少我是没看出来这个差别的。即使有差别（我让步一下），大概这也不是一个很强的攻击点，放在第一段挺亏的；可以作为下一段的一个分论点支持一下。

Even assuming that residents of MC love do water sports themselves, the author fails to convince us that they will go to MC River for these sports once the river is clean again. It is equally possible that there are already many alternatives for the residents and they might not bother to change a place for recreational activities. For instance, their may be several swimming pools and other facilities for fishing and boating in MC, with excellent shower rooms and strong security protection, which can barely acquire in the river. What is more, the outdoor sports places may not suitable for every one; the strong sun light might burn the skin and even cause cancer. Under these circumstances, there might be a considerable amount of people prefer to go to the original places for recreation activities. Therefore, the assumption that recreational use of the river is likely to increase is unwarranted.
楼上的说你这段不好，我觉得可以啊，他写的那段只是你这段里面一个分观点而已。不过你这段里面那个怕晒太阳的例子还是不适合的，有的人怕，有的人不怕，那些不怕的人还是会去，人还是增加啦？！
Another flaw that undermines the logic of the argument is that there is no assurance that the water condition can be reversed. Although the agency promises to clean up MC River, as we know, it is difficult to amelioration than destruction. It is doubtful that if it can accomplish their goal or the cleaning up work will last for how long. Without these information, it is difficult to judge the water condition in the following years. As a consequence, promoting the council to increase its budget on the lands along the river is too soon to be accepted.
这一段展开说说嘛，为什么一时不能恢复，拿出你biology的专业知识。。。

Before I come to my conclusion, another weak point that defeats the conclusion is that whether the lands along the river need to be improved. As there will be more people come to the river, the facilities along the river are surly essential. Nevertheless, without providing the information about the publicly owned lands at present, it is hastily to increase budget for them. Perhaps the lands have already well equipped. Hence, it is unreasonable for adding budgets on it. Maybe the facilities on the publicly owned lands is not enough for a large amount of people, however, considering that the water condition has not changed, and there will not be people in a short time, there is still unnecessary for increasing budgets now. The council can make the decision later.
这段不错
To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it is presumpuous for the author to asset that the MC council should increase its budget for improving the lands along the river. To make his recommendation logically acceptable, the author would have to provide further information on the residents sports activities. The schedule of the cleaning process and the condition of the publicly owned lands along the river are also crucial when weighing the situation.

嗯 argu已经写得很顺手了，我觉得没问题了

使用道具举报