[a习作temp] Argument137 请大家给点思路上的建议 [复制链接]

ahqiu
UID：207682

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1646
注册时间: 2005-5-1
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-7-30 17:30:29 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

137The 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."
以前看过
7月30日
从15：25到 15：55，刚刚半小时，没有时间检查，拼写语法错误是个左右，有点难以忍受我的打字速度，呜呜，蜗牛一样
只改了拼写错误，思路没有改，第三个自己觉得有点问题
In this argument, the arguer recommends that the local council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicity owned lands along the Mason River. To support his argument, the arguer cited a survey that region's residents like water sports consistently. Also, evidence that the agency will clean up the river is raised to lend more support to the recommendation. It seems plausible at first glance, but it has several fallacies when scrutinized closely.

To begin with, the validity of the survey is open to doubt. The arguer tells us little about when the survey was carried out. It is possible that the survey was carried out several years ago when the river had not been polluted, and people are not interest in it at all nowadays, for there may be other recreation. Moreover, the arguer fails to pay attention to the credibility of people's reply. It is possible that people just imagine the happiness of the water sport, but few persons have experience it by themselves. In this case, the survey does not guarantee that the most residents will like the water sports.

Besides, the argument is base on an assumption that the agency would work effectively to clean up the river. No evidence available, however, to show that their plan will work effectively. Perhaps, the pollution of the river is so serious that the agency could do little about it or just alleviate the situation. Unless the arguer tells us the situation of the polluted river, we can hardly believe the agency can clean it up.

Lastly, there is a premise that the publicity owned land needs improvement, which lends little to support the recommendation, because it is questionable. No evidence shows that the situation of the public land is bad or prevents people going there. Also, it is possible that the government has been in budget deficit, and there is no fund to make such improvement, otherwise the government may clean the river several years ago. If the arguer does not tell us the situation there, we have no reason to believe the necessity of any improvement.

To sum up, the argument has missed some important information which could strengthen its credibility. To better support his recommendation, the arguer should make sure whether the residents like water sports or not nowadays. Also, the arguer should give us some information about the situation of the polluted river to illustrate the feasibility of the clean-up plan. In addition to these mentioned above, I would like to know the situation of the publicity owned land in Mason City to further evaluate the necessity of any improvement there.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-30 at 22:26 ]

谢谢你，虽然我只想亲吻一片雪花，你却给了我银色的世界。