a137 第一次写 请大家喷

starshinejingUID: 2756875

In this argument, the author claims that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for publicly owned lands along the river. He bases his claim on the following reasoning line that is the river will be cleaned up and therefore there will be increasing recreational use of the river and need to improve the lands. However, there are several flaws that weaken the author’s claim.
Firstly, the author claims that the residents avoid using the river because it is unclear, but he fails to provide any evidence to prove that this is the only reason that causes it. Perhaps people doing recreational activities on the river need to give fees to the government and the fee is too high to afford, or maybe the river does not have any safety instructions to insure players’ safety when playing recreational activities. Without ruling out such possibilities, it is unconvincingly to give the conclusion that the residents’ unwilling to play here are caused by the poor quality of the river.
Furthermore, the author fails to establish any cause and effect relationship between the clean-up the river and increase in the recreational activities. Since I mentioned above, the reason that people refuse to choose mason river may not be caused by the poor quality of the river, so perhaps even after the clean up, people still find it hard to play here, possibly because the high fee and the lack of safety-insured instructions. Even assuming that the poor quality of the river is the only reason that people refuse to play here, the author does not give any data about the plans that the agency announced. To what extend will the river be cleaned up and will the clean up eventually causes much higher fee is open to doubt. Without giving exactly evidence to show the cause and effect relationship between the clean-up and the increase, and data about the agency’s plan, it is hard to believe the author’s claim.
Finally, even conceding that the clean-up plan will increase the residents’ use of the river as a place for recreational activities, it is unconvincingly to announce that the city council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. Since there are no data about the condition of the publicly owned lands now, it is hard to say that whether the lands need improvements. Maybe the lands along the river are in perfect condition. Also the author does not provide evidence to prove that the recreational activities will use the lands along the river as a place. Maybe the recreational activities playing here are mainly swimming and fishing and are irrelevant to the lands along the river.
In sum, the author fails to convince me that there is a need to increase the city council’s budget to improve the lands along the river. To prove it the author needs to provide data to show that the poor quality of the river is the only reason that people refuse to play here. He also needs to provide information about whether the clean-up plan will lead to increase in the use of the river. Finally he would like to provide evidence to show there is a need to improve the publicly lands along the river to fully convince me.