[i习作temp] argument137 寻互拍，留连接(sally) [复制链接]

sallyxindu
UID：2131253

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 0
寄托币: 3826
注册时间: 2005-8-22
精华: 2
帖子: 11

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2006-1-26 14:37:43 |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."

提纲、
1，调查的可信度，人群是否有说服力，
2，抱怨水质不一定再不接触，也许是为了更多得接触而向有关部分反映使之重视，而且，即使真的avoid水，也不一顶是因为水不干净，也许是因为最近水位上涨不安全，或者是刻意为了维护河流的自然状况使不受认为破坏。
3，即使承认水不干净需要澄清，代理人的宣布不一定有效，是否实施还受其他因素的影响。
4，水上娱乐的增加是否一定要增加沿岸的休闲娱乐设施？是否定要增加预算？因为这个费用有可能通过其他方式实现，比如商家的赞助，

正文
The argument seems to be plausible at first blush in light of some premises the arguer falls back on to back up his ratiocination, such as the result of surveys, anency’s annoouncement to clean up Mason River(M), the seemly potential funding needed to improve publicly owned area along M and so forth. Upon a closer inspection, some fallacies concealed in the reasoning is bound to be unveiled in that the arguer fails to take into consideration other factor which having bearing on the underlying occasion of the argument.

First and foremost, the surveys conducted amony M’s citizens is opten to doubt and not representative to be relied on. It cannot be denied that there lies the likelihood that the samples of the poll is within the confines of water-sports likers. If this turns out to be the case, it’s natural that water-related recreations such as boating, fishing, swimming and the like would rank high as their inclination. But as a matter of fact, the majority of M’s residents have not been found of water sports. Under such a circumstance, we have sound reasons to believe that the surveys cannot be quoted to demonstrate that M’s interest in water sports has been sharply undermined compared with that of their consistent preference to water sports

In the second place, denizens’ frequent complaints about M river’s quality does not necessarily mean that people would avoid the rivers. It’s still possible that denizens complain to relevant departments of the degrading water quality as a means to propell their endeavors to clean the river and therefore they can use the river more. In addition, even thought people avoid M river, more often than not, we could not attribute all the reason to the uncleanness of the river. Other alternatives may bear the immediate interest to this phenomena. For example, maybe the water level is increasing greatly recently, which is very dangerous, and thus people forbear to get into the watere, it’s also possible that people restrain from the water so as to keep it in the natural stuatus as opposed to dissatisfying with its quality. In this aspect, the writer fails to convince us that residents must avoid M river because it’s not clean enough.

What’s more, concession granted that the M river is not clean enoough and it’s in dire need of cleaning, the announcement of the river angency may still could not take effect in that the real operation is at the mercy of other factors as well, for example, the funding for the project, agreement of government and so on. Without dealing well with all the components, the announcement of angency alone cannot carry any weight.

Last but not least, increasing use of M river does not necessarily beget increasing budget. In this case, the arguer never furnish us with any shred of solid evidence to bespeak that increasing budget of city council is the precondition of more facilities along the river. It cannot be denied that it’s highly possible that other funding resources rather than council budget navigate the feasibilty of the plan. Consider, maybe the investors of the facilities themselves are responsible for the funding, or other donations from public play the foundamentle role in the funding. If the above assumed money access is the underlying funding resource of the project. The writer faills to validate his reasoning that the city council has to increate its budget in order to carry out the construction of facilities along M river.

To sum up, having viewed all the aspects above, we do not feel difficult to draw the conclusion that the writer’s ratiocination is unpersuasive and questionable. In oder to make a compelling analysis, it’s highly recommended that the arguer view the issue in a more all-rounded perspective, he should take into calculation the reliability of the survey, the relation between citizens’ complaint and their disinclination of doing water sporst, the feasibility of angency’s announcement , the funding resources of the project and so forth before making the final suggestion.

写得太多了，大家帮我压缩下啊，我觉得上面的错误都挺重要的，不知道该省略哪些．

让我们在寄托里相互帮助鼓励，一同寻找生命里的寄托

回应
0

使用道具举报

neverstopcow
UID：2149686

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 0
寄托币: 1659
注册时间: 2005-10-19
精华: 0
帖子: 5

沙发

发表于 2006-1-26 17:55:18 |只看该作者

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."

提纲、
1，       调查的可信度，人群是否有说服力，
2，       抱怨水质不一定再不接触，也许是为了更多得接触而向有关部分反映使之重视，而且，即使真的avoid水，也不一顶是因为水不干净，也许是因为最近水位上涨不安全，或者是刻意为了维护河流的自然状况使不受认为破坏。
3，       即使承认水不干净需要澄清，代理人的宣布不一定有效，是否实施还受其他因素的影响。
4，       水上娱乐的增加是否一定要增加沿岸的休闲娱乐设施？是否定要增加预算？因为这个费用有可能通过其他方式实现，比如商家的赞助，

正文
The argument seems to be plausible at first blush in light of some premises the arguer falls back on （sally似乎格外喜欢用有back的短语呀，这里两个back在一起总有点不舒服，这样改一下会不会好点：some premises the arguer assumes to back his ratiocination...）to back up his ratiocination, such as the result of surveys, anency’s annoouncement to clean up Mason River(M), the seemly potential funding needed to improve publicly owned area along M and so forth. (最近看到很多关于开头restate的说法，既然你都写得这么长了，我觉得这里也没什么必要restate了) Upon a closer inspection, some fallacies concealed in the reasoning is bound to be unveiled in that the arguer fails to take into consideration other factors which having bearing on the underlying occasion of the argument.

First and foremost, the surveys conducted amony M’s citizens is opten (open) to doubt and not representative to be relied on. It cannot be denied that there lies the likelihood that the samples of the poll is (are) within the confines of water-sports likers. If this turns out to be the case, it’s natural that water-related recreations such as boating, fishing, swimming and the like would rank high as their inclination. But as a matter of fact, the majority of M’s residents have not been found of water sports. Under such a circumstance, we have sound reasons to believe that the surveys cannot be quoted to demonstrate that M’s interest in water sports has been sharply undermined compared with that of their consistent preference to water sports (这里好像有点语病，而且有点罗索)

In the second place, denizens’ frequent complaints about M river’s quality does not necessarily mean that people would avoid the rivers. It’s still possible that denizens complain to relevant departments of the degrading water quality as a means to propell their endeavors to clean the river and therefore they can use the river more. In addition, even thought（though） people avoid M river, more often than not,(这个短语家在这里有点怪) we could not attribute all the reason to the uncleanness of the river. Other alternatives may bear the immediate interest to this phenomena. For example, maybe the water level is increasing greatly recently, which is very dangerous, and thus people forbear to get into the watere （water）, it’s also possible that people restrain from the water so as to keep it in the natural stuatus as opposed to dissatisfying with (这个词组好像放在这里不是很恰当，换成contaminate or pollute) its quality. In this aspect, the writer fails to convince us that residents must avoid M river because it’s not clean enough.(这一段写得很长，一方面我觉得相比之下你的第一个人们这么说事想让水质提高这个理由就不是很主要，我认为主要的还是不见的是水质不干净，如果要反驳，我觉得一个有说服力或者两个就可以了，你把所有的情况都堆上去当然不错，可是时间是否够用？而且也显得罗索，另一方面，你比较喜欢用词组，这点我很佩服，很多都用得很准确，可是这也是字数太多的原因之一，有时候可以用动词表示也可以很贴切，有很简练)

What’s more, concession granted that the M river is not clean enoough and it’s in dire need of cleaning, the announcement of the river angency may still could not take effect in that the real operation is at the mercy of other factors as well, for example, the funding for the project, agreement of government and so on. Without dealing well with all the components, the announcement of angency alone cannot carry any weight.

Last but not least, increasing use of M river does not necessarily beget increasing budget. In this case, the arguer never furnish us with any shred of solid evidence to bespeak that increasing budget of city council is the precondition of more facilities along the river. （这里是不是有点误会了，他题目中根本没有说会在沿河地区修建什么设施阿，可能它只是说多点预算把沿河地区美化一下，好吸引更多的人，这句话稍稍便一下就可以了，不要提facility）It cannot be denied that it’s highly possible that other funding resources rather than council budget navigate the feasibilty of the plan. Consider, maybe the investors of the facilities themselves are responsible for the funding, or other donations from public play the foundamentle role in the funding. If the above assumed money access is the underlying funding resource of the project. The writer faills to validate his reasoning that the city council has to increate its budget in order to carry out the construction of facilities along M river.

To sum up, having viewed all the aspects above, we do not feel difficult to draw the conclusion that the writer’s ratiocination is unpersuasive and questionable. In oder to make a compelling analysis, it’s highly recommended that the arguer view the issue in a more all-rounded perspective, he should take into calculation the reliability of the survey, the relation between citizens’ complaint and their disinclination of doing water sporst, the feasibility of angency’s announcement , the funding resources of the project and so forth before making the final suggestion.
嗯，问题大概都在文章中说了，总的说来，sally 的文章一向是值得学习的:victory:

使用道具举报