argument137 G-89-互助社-8月11日同主题写作

waximaUID：155066

很多词翻来覆去得用，像convincing,eloquent,assumption之类的，因为找不出别的替换，着急呀。。。


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 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."


The writer explained the seldom use of Mason River for recreation by the reason that residents thought it was unclean. But this reason was not well supported by the mere evidence of people’s complains. On the other hand, the deduction that the recreational use of the river would increase because of the clean-up plan is not convincing, neither. The suggestion to increase budget for public lands along river, based on the previous explanation and deduction, is not persuasive.

The foundation of this argument is the assumption that people do no use the river for recreational use because it is not clean enough. This assumption is wronged at least in two points.

First, the writer cannot prove that the water in the Mason River is not clean. In the argument, the writer only provided a very vague proof of the complaint from people about the quality of the water in the river. Because different people have different criteria as to whether the water is clean or not, the complaints are not scientifically designed surveys, give out no statistical evidence of the number of the people who make the plain and even provide no explicit description of the content of the complaints.  The situation may be that only few people have made such complaints or they are all very small complaints coming from captious people. To prove a low quality of water, the writer should give detailed data from specializing and authoritative agencies who take the responsibility of water monitoring. As no such data or proof is displayed here, the statement that the water is not clean is not well founded.

Second, even the water is not clean, the reason why people do not use the water for recreational use is still under doubt. Recreational use except swimming does not require a very high quality of the water. It is very possible that the river is a very busy industrial harbor that there is no space for recreation. It is also possible that there is another river or water park where people can have fun. As no survey is carried out on the local people, it is not convincing to make the low quality of water the main reason why people do not use it for recreation.

In addition to the above assumption, the writer’s succeeding prediction of the increasing recreational use of the river is not convincing, neither. The announcement of the plan to clean up the river is not a guarantee that the water will be clean soon. As we all know, it takes time and efforts to set back good environment. It may take several years for the plan to be actually carried out and a even longer time to get the water pure and clean. On the other hand, it is not revealed in the plan how clean the water will be. If the plan only aims at a low level of water quality, if will help little to the current situation.

The last but not least, the suggestion to increase budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is not necessary. It is hard to tell whether the current budget is not enough as the writer gives no data on the current use of the budget. It may be more eloquent if the writer compares the current use with the possible future one and manage to show that there is a tendency for increasing expenses.

In conclusion, the writer’s basic assumption is not eloquent and the prediction is somewhat arbitrary. Before more detailed data or more convincing proof is raised, it is difficult to accept the suggestion based on such deduction.

polymathUID：179557

占座！:)

polymathUID：179557

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 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."


The writer explained the seldom use of Mason River for recreation by the reason that residents thought it was unclean. But this reason was not well supported by the mere evidence of people’s complains. On the other hand, the deduction that the recreational use of the river would increase because of the clean-up plan is not convincing, neither. The suggestion to increase budget for public lands along river, based on the previous explanation and deduction, is not persuasive.很奇怪的开头段！转述作者的top sentence最好放在首句，末句表明自己的观点就行！

The foundation of this argument is the assumption that people do no use the river for recreational use because it is not clean enough. This assumption is wronged at least in two points.这一段不用独立出来可以和第一个分析段落放一起！

First, the writer cannot prove that the water in the Mason River is not clean. In the argument, the writer only provided a very vague proof of the complaint from people about the quality of the water in the river. Because different people have different criteria as to whether the water is clean or not, the complaints are not scientifically designed surveys, give out no statistical evidence of the number of the people who make the plain and even provide no explicit description of the content of the complaints.  The situation may be that only few people have made such complaints or they are all very small complaints coming from captious people. To prove a low quality of water, the writer should give detailed data from specializing and authoritative agencies who take the responsibility of water monitoring. As no such data or proof is displayed here, the statement that the water is not clean is not well founded.论证的比较好！

Second, even the water is not clean, the reason why people do not use the water for recreational use is still under doubt. Recreational use except swimming does not require a very high quality of the water. It is very possible that the river is a very busy industrial harbor that there is no space for recreation. It is also possible that there is another river or water park where people can have fun. As no survey is carried out on the local people, it is not convincing to make the low quality of water the main reason why people do not use it for recreation. 不错！

In addition to the above assumption, the writer’s succeeding prediction of the increasing recreational use of the river is not convincing, neither.有这个用法么？ The announcement of the plan to clean up the river is not a guarantee that the water will be clean soon. As we all know, it takes time and efforts to set back good environment. It may take several years for the plan to be actually carried out and a even longer time to get the water pure and clean. On the other hand, it is not revealed in the plan how clean the water will be. If the plan only aims at a low level of water quality, if will help little to the current situation.

The last but not least, the suggestion to increase budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is not necessary. It is hard to tell whether the current budget is not enough as the writer gives no data on the current use of the budget. It may be more eloquent if the writer compares the current use with the possible future one and manage to show that there is a tendency for increasing expenses.

In conclusion, the writer’s basic assumption is not eloquent and the prediction is somewhat arbitrary. Before more detailed data or more convincing proof is raised, it is difficult to accept the suggestion based on such deduction.

总评：分析和批驳的都很到位，开头的形式还是注意一下！能否直接将作者的意图先指明，再进行陈述！还有就是段落问题，不要分的太多！显的很乱！当然你的衔接词用的很好！继续加油！:)