[a习作temp] argument137 【0710G-HIT坚持交作业小组第十一次作业】SavileRow [复制链接]

SavileRow
UID：2284947

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 13
寄托币: 1355
注册时间: 2006-12-19
精华: 0
帖子: 12

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-10 20:25:52 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

题目：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."
字数：539 用时：00:28:04 日期：2007-8-10 16:55:45

提纲：
1废话
2 居民不喜欢在MR开展水上活动不一定是因为水质不好
3 公布清理MR计划不一定就能获得成功并保证使MR的recreational use增加
4 即使将来会有更多人来开展水上运动，不一定就需要提高河岸土地的预算
5 废话

The arguer asserts that the recreational use of Mason River (MR) is likely to increase and the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along MR. To support his assertion, he cites the fact that residents rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation but they seldom use the nearby MR because they are not satisfied about the quality of the water. He also points out that the plans about cleaning up MR have been announced. Careful examination of these evidences, however, reveals that they render little support to the assertion.

Firstly, the arguer unfairly blames the quality of MR for the fact that residents seldom use it for water sports even though they love recreational activities. However, there are many other factors other than water quality might influence the residents' decisions even though the residents have complained about it. Since the arguer does not account for other possibilities, it is possible that the MR also serves as a waterway and there are so many boats for transportation on river that residents find it dangerous to carry out water sports. Or, it is possible that the water current in MR is too rapid for water sports especially boating and swimming. If this is the case, plans on cleaning up MR for the sake of attracting residents to participate water sports will be useless. In short, without ruling out other possibilities, I am not convinced about the assumption.

Secondly, even if the quality of water should be responsible for the seldom use for recreational activity, the plans to clean up MR is little indication that the increase of recreational use of the river will be guaranteed, because the plans themselves are not sufficient to gain the desired water quality. To make the goal met, it requires other efforts. For example, the staff in the agency responsible for rivers must be efficient and competent enough. Or, the factories whose waste water pollutes the MR must be cooperative. Besides, the awareness of protecting environment of residents must be enhanced. Simply put, as long as I am not informed how well the plan implemented and other factors influencing the final result, I find the assumption unjustifiable.

Finally, even if the cleaning up plans can succeed and more residents are attracted to take part in recreational activity on MR, it does not indicate that the city council has to increase its budget for improvements to lands along the river. Absent evidence there is, it is entirely possible that residents who participate water sports do not take use of lands along the river much. After all, water sports happen mainly on the surface of river. On the other hand, perhaps the total number of facilities on the lands is still able to satisfy residents' needs even if there might be a rocketing increase of use. Without considering these conditions, I do not find the recommendation about increasing budget in need.

In sum, the assertion is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To better bolster the assertion, the arguer has to provide further evidences as following (1) a survey confirming that residents do not use MR for recreational activity is because of its water quality;(2)other measures assuring the desired goal of the plans will be obtained;(3)a report showing that the budget to lands along the river needs an increase.