argument137 G89组过目，同主题作业

liulin12369UID：2112878

137, 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 plan 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 lands along the Mason River."

The argument concluded that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly lands along the Mason River. To support this conclusion the speaker claims that Mason City residents seldom use the Mason River for recreation because of the bad quality of the water in the river and after the agency take a plan to clean up the river, the recreation use of the river is likely to increase. The argument is flawed in several important aspects.

First, the author unfairly assumes that the river is now not clean enough to use, since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river. It is possible that the complaints comes from a group of people who is rigorous and only evaluate the quality by the color and clarity. Perhaps at one time, the deposit of sands is interrupt by a strong inflow and the color of the water presents turbidity. The question whether the river is needed to clarify is up in the air.

Second, even if the river is actually dirty, there is no evidence to ensure the cleaning plan to succeed. If the degree of pollution is serious and the city cannot afford the large cost to renew, the action to clean it is infeasible. What's more, perhaps, the council hardly master a technology or the efficiency and effectiveness is not a fine in the project. In these cases the river will not be cleaned in all meas.

Third, even if the water is defecated accord with the request of the citizen, no reassurance is provided to make the residents use the river to recreate. The claim that residents rank the water sports as a favorite form of recreation does not exactly mean they will take part in this sport. Sometimes, the citizens are not so at leisure that they could only watch the sports on the TV set or read the report in the magazine. Otherwise, if the river is fleet and narrow, the residents will turn to other place to boating and swimming. Meanwhile, the river may be dead water and the fishing in it will be impossible. Moreover, perhaps there has been large wide seashore at an ease accessible spot or a popular water paradise has been catching the eyes of the residents.

Finally, even though we suppose all the assumption are correct and thus the recreational use of the river is likely to increase, still we cannot arrive at the conclusion that the city council will need to increase its budget for improvements to publicly owned lands along the Mason river. For the reason that this public land may have been quite fit to applied into the recreational activities. For example, perhaps the river banks is wide and smooth and ease to approach while there are cheap stalls to provided food and water. In this case, the place will need no improvement any more.

In sum, the argument’s conclusion is logically unwarranted. To strengthen it the author should provide more evidence that the river should be and could be cleaned and thus the use of it to recreation will incline. To better access the argument, we also need more information of the condition of the public land along the river.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-4 at 10:11 ]

keeyangUID：2120118

137, 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 plan 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 lands along the Mason River."


The argument concluded用concludes that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publiclyowned  lands along the Mason River. To support this conclusion the speaker claims that Mason City residents seldom use the Mason River for recreation because of the bad quality of the water in the river and after the agency takes  a plan to clean up the river, the recreational  use of the river is likely to increase. The argument is flawed in several important aspects.

First, the author unfairly assumes that the river is now not clean enough to use, since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river. It is possible that the complaints comes from a group of people who is rigorous and only evaluate the quality by the color and clarity. Perhaps at one time, the deposit of sands is interrupt by a strong inflow and the color of the water presents turbidity. The question whether the river is needed to clarify is up in the air.
这一点以前没有想到，有收获

Second, even if the river is actually dirty, there is no evidence to ensure the cleaning plan to succeed. If the degree of pollution is serious and the city cannot afford the large cost to renew, the action to clean it is infeasible. What's more, perhaps, the council hardly master a technology or the efficiency and effectiveness is not a fine in the project. In these cases the river will not be cleaned in all meas.

Third, even if the water is defecated accord with the request of the citizen, no reassurance is provided to make the residents use the river to recreate. The claim that residents rank the water sports as a favorite form of recreation does not exactly mean they will take part in this sport. Sometimes, the citizens are not so at leisure that they could only watch the sports on the TV set or read the report in the magazine.感觉这个反驳有些牵强  Otherwise, if the river is fleet and narrow, the residents will turn to other place to boating and swimming. Meanwhile, the river may be dead water and the fishing in it will be impossible. Moreover, perhaps there has been large wide seashore at an ease accessible spot or a popular water paradise has been catching the eyes of the residents.

Finally, even though we suppose all the assumptions  are correct and thus the recreational use of the river is likely to increase, still we cannot arrive at the conclusion that the city council will need to increase its budget for improvements to publicly owned lands along the Mason river. For the reason that this public land may have been quite fit to applied into the recreational activities. For example, perhaps the river banks is wide and smooth and ease to approach while there are cheap stalls to provided food and water. In this case, the place will need no improvement any more.

In sum, the argument’s conclusion is logically unwarranted. To strengthen it the author should provide more evidence that the river should be and could be cleaned and thus the use of it to recreation will incline. To better access the argument, we also need more information of the condition of the public land along the river.


逐步展开的总体结构很好。

alcestisUID：2101945

The argument concluded that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly lands along the Mason River. To support this conclusion the speaker claims that Mason City residents seldom use the Mason River for recreation because of the bad quality of the water in the river and after the agency take a plan to clean up the river, the recreation use of the river is likely to increase. The argument is flawed in several important aspects.

First, the author unfairly assumes that the river is now not clean enough to use, since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river. It is possible that the complaints comes from a 加个small是否更好 group of people who is extremelyrigorous and only evaluate the quality by the color and clarity这个color and clarity是不错的指标阿~~可以说他们用饮用水的标准来要求游泳用水. Perhaps at one time, the deposit of sand is  accidentally interrupt by a strong inflow and the color of the water presents turbidity. The question whether the river is needed to clarify is up in the air这个短语什么意思？ .

Second, even if the river is actually dirty, there is no evidence to ensure the cleaning plan to succeed. If the degree of pollution is serious and the city cannot afford the large cost to renew, the action to clean it is infeasible. What's more, perhaps, the council hardly masters a technology or the efficiency and effectiveness is not a fine in the project. In these cases the river will not be cleaned in all means.

Third, even if the water is defecated accord with the request of the citizen, no reassurance is provided to make the residents use the river to recreate. The claim that residents rank the water sports as a favorite form of recreation does not exactly mean they will take part in this sport. Sometimes, the citizens are not so at leisure that they could only watch the sports on the TV set or read the report in the magazine. Otherwise, if the river is fleet and narrow, the residents will turn to other place to boating and swimming. Meanwhile, the river may be dead water and the fishing in it will be impossible. Moreover, perhaps there has been large wide seashore at an ease accessible spot or a popular water paradise has been catching the eyes of the residents.

Finally, even though we suppose all the assumption are correct and thus the recreational use of the river is likely to increase, still we cannot arrive at the conclusion that the city council will need to increase its budget for improvements to publicly owned lands along the Mason river. For the reason that this public land may have been quite fit to applied into the recreational activities. For example, perhaps the river banks is wide and smooth and ease to approach while there are cheap stalls to provided food and water. In this case, the place will need no improvement any more.

In sum, the argument’s conclusion is logically unwarranted. To strengthen it the author should provide more evidence that the river should be and could be cleaned and thus the use of it to recreation will incline. To better access the argument, we also need more information of the condition of the public land along the river.
除了第一段 其他段落都很清楚
总体结构层层深入 值得学习
敬请回拍https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=311658

liulin12369UID：2112878

谢了，一定回拍~！