[a习作temp] argument137 [Interregnum小组]第十一次作业 [复制链接]

jasminejyc
UID：2487053

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 710
注册时间: 2008-4-24
精华: 0
帖子: 6

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-7-24 19:54:34 |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: 425 TIME: 00:25:20 DATE: 2008/7/24 16:52:39

In this argument, the arguer comes up with the conclusion that the Mason City (MC) council will need to grant more budget on the improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River (MR) by citing that the quality of the water of the MR will be better after the clean-up and the more residents will have recreational activities in the river area. Unfortunately, the arguer fails to convince us for several logical fallacies he committed.

First and for most, there is no valid evidence proving that the region's residents will come to the river to have fun, no matter the quality of the water is good or not. The rank of the favorite recreation of the region's residents offered by the arguer can say nothing about the trend. It is likely that people just choose what kind of sports they would like to watch on the television. Even they really like swimming, fishing and boating, they may go to other areas or places to do so. It is possible that there is a swimming pool in the city where people would like to go to swim and to play water ball.

Secondly, supposing the assumption that the residents are willing to have recreational activities in the river, it may be not the quality of the river that prevents them from going to it. Maybe the river is far from the downtown and is not convenient to be there. Therefore, if the main reason is not the quality of the water, it is groundless to assert that plans for cleaning up the MR will work. There is another possible side effect of the clean up plans. As the agency may use some chemical things to clarify the water, it is possible that the fishes in the water will suffer a havoc. Maybe those chemical things are poisonous to fishes. If so, people who like fishing will never go to the river.

Thirdly, the arguer's suggest that the MC council should increase its budget for improvements to the lands along the MR are groundless. Maybe the lands along the MR have already had a good quality therefore need no improvement. Without introducing the condition of these lands, the arguer cannot convince us for this suggestion.

In sum, to strengthen his groundless argument, the arguer should try harder to find the real reason why the region's residents do not like to go to the river and whether it is necessary to improve the condition of the nearby lands. If so, the argument will be more convincible.

回应
0

使用道具举报

renyun1314
UID：2494792

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 250
注册时间: 2008-5-16
精华: 0
帖子: 0

沙发

发表于 2008-7-25 14:37:12 |只看该作者

In this argument, the arguer comes up with the conclusion that the Mason City (MC) council will need to grant more budget on the improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River (MR) by citing that the quality of the water of the MR will be better after the clean-up and the more residents will have recreational activities in the river area. Unfortunately, the arguer fails to convince us for several logical fallacies he committed.

First and for most, there is no valid evidence proving that the region's residents will come to the river to have fun, no matter the quality of the water is good or not. The rank of the favorite recreation of the region's residents offered by the arguer can say nothing about the trend. It is likely that people just choose what kind of sports they would like to watch on the television. Even they really like swimming, fishing and boating, they may go to other areas or places to do so. It is possible that there is a swimming pool in the city where people would like to go to swim and to play water ball.（喜爱水上运动，但不一定到MR去）

Secondly, supposing the assumption that the residents are willing to have recreational activities in the river, it may be not the quality of the river that prevents them from going to it. Maybe the river is far from the downtown and is not convenient to be there. Therefore, if the main reason is not the quality of the water, it is groundless to assert that plans for cleaning up the MR will work. There is another possible side effect of the clean up plans. As the agency may use some chemical things to clarify the water, it is possible that the fishes in the water will suffer a havoc. Maybe those chemical things are poisonous to fishes. If so, people who like fishing will never go to the river. 不去ＭＲ的其他原因

Thirdly, the arguer's suggest that the MC council should increase its budget for improvements to the lands along the MR are groundless. Maybe the lands along the MR have already had a good quality therefore need no improvement. Without introducing the condition of these lands, the arguer cannot convince us for this suggestion.（可能ＭＲ已经不需要开发了）讨论开发的合理性，但是只是自己做了一个已经不需要在开发的假设，可以再分析一下，比如有其他开发商，　开发成本高之类

In sum, to strengthen his groundless argument, the arguer should try harder to find the real reason why the region's residents do not like to go to the river and whether it is necessary to improve the condition of the nearby lands. If so, the argument will be more convincible.

条理清楚，但还要在努力，加油！

使用道具举报