argument137 今天发个ARGUE～必回～略修改

换色UID: 2658709

TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - 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 passage advocates that City council need budget to improve the public lands along the Mason River considering the citizens will have more activities along the river. The author illustrates the viewpoint by telling that citizens like water sports and if the water is clean enough, they will come to enjoy the place. But the author fails to establish a logical connection between those issues thus the conclusion is not convincing.

There is no evidence to confirm the causal relationship between the pollution of water and people's activity. Though pollution seems reasonable at first glance that prevent people from coming. There are alternative explanations besides it, since the author fails to provide information about the location and transportation of the river. It is possible that the river is far from residential areas which prevent people from coming. No one in this city like to take such inconvenient to drive that long. In addition, perhaps it is not the only river in the city. A wider and longer river is just three miles away which attract crowded people every weekend. Without considering every causes of the unpopular circumstance of the river, city council has little likelihood to win citizens' preference only by cleaning up Mason River.

Even we assuming that cleaner the river is, more people will come, we are still suspecting the efficiency of the cleaning project. From the passage, we can't acquire any information about the main causes of river pollution nor the solutions of government. All we have known is a decision without practical plan and details. The reason causing pollution maybe several: biology problems, chemical construction and trash. Each of these cause need to set up a whole project leaded by experts and using techniques to solve and need politicians to strengthen the management of factory. If the government fails to consider one of the causes or only try to clean the river without cut off the pollution headstream, the solution will be inefficient and very far to attract people.

In addition, if we imagine the river is clear and people taking plenty of activities here, the author still fail to provide causal relationship between popularity of the river and the improvement of lands along river. Lacking the description of conditions of the land presently, we can’t make decision about the plan of improvement. Maybe it is an excellent place already that doesn’t need further investment. Even if the land is austere without any decoration, it still can be popular. People coming to the river can be referred as nature-lovers; hence a land keeping ordinary condition is the best choice for them. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the land will be used to hold part of the activities. Maybe people only boating on the river, then they will have no chance to go ashore. The city council doesn't take serious consideration about the land along river and get a hasty generalization.

In conclusion, the author fails to build logical relationship between the issues and failing to come up with effective solution. The city council should review the condition and causes of the river pollution and make decision after second thought.


根据5楼童鞋改了第四段，每段TS没有该，因为完全不知道怎么改....嘛，再请高人，再扔我一砖～～


附带自己的中文提纲，这个一目了然，这篇文章写的不长........回贴必回礼^^

A、政府认为人们不在这条河活动是因为水质不好，这是没有证据的。人们不在这条河活动，和水质不好，没有逻辑关系。没有关于这条河位置、附近居民等信息，我们完全可以猜测是因为这条河距居民区偏远所以才没有人来的。
B、即使人们愿意来这条河如果它清澈了，但是它真的会清澈吗？政府已经有利澄清河水的计划，但是文章却没有详细介绍是什么样的计划以及这条河污染的原因是什么。假如说河水污染是因为上游有一家化工厂排泄废水，政府如果仅仅是净化水，而不治理源头，是没有用的。
C、即使水清澈了，人们来活动了，那又跟附近的公共地区有什么关系呢？

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

论断：政府需要为河边的公共场所的改善增加支出，因为河上娱乐可能会上升。目前居民很少用河进行娱乐，尽管对他们的调查一直说这是他们最喜欢的娱乐方式。由于一直有关于河水质量的抱怨，居民必须避开河水。不过这种情况会有改变，负责我们这个区的机构宣布了清理河的计划。
1. 以前曾有人抱怨河水质量不能说明人们是因为河水质量的原因才不去做水上运动。可能M河不适合做水上运动，比如河流比较急。或者人们觉得在M河游泳地不雅观不愿意去做水上运动。
2. 即使人们是因为水的质量才不愿意去做水上运动，机构宣布的清理河水的计划也不一定改变人们而使他们愿意去做水上运动。一方面不一定河水就能干净，污染程度，还有工作效率，都不一定能达到标准；另一方面即使河水清干净了，可能因为人们长时间不使用M河，已经不习惯使用它做水上运动了。
3. 就算河流的娱乐用途可能将会增加,也不一定就要增加改善M河沿岸公共土地的预算，也许根本都不用改善，或者改善的费用太庞大,根本都支付不起.或者人们都反对改善良而希望保持沿岸土地的原貌.
结论：这篇社论没有了解当地情况，也不知道前景如何，政府的决策还需考虑。

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

文章整体结构没有问题，论证也比较清晰，整体还是不错的~继续加油~

换色UID: 2658709

看了你的提纲，大体思路和我的是一致的，又提供了一些新的理由，感觉又丰富一些。
嘛，真诚希望大大以后不忙的时候，再回来可以狠狠指出我们这些新人的弱点～

rachelwang712UID: 2757860

The passage advocates that City council need budget to improve the public lands along the Mason River considering the citizens will have用do或者换种说法比较好？ more activities along the river. The author illustrates the viewpoint by telling that citizens like water sports and if the water is clean enough, they will come to enjoy the place. But the author fails to establish a logical connection between those issues thus the conclusion is not convincing.

There is no evidence to confirm the causal relationship between the pollution of water and people's activity. Though pollution seems reasonable at first glance that prevent people from coming. There are alternative explanations besides it, since the author fails to provide information about the location and transportation of the river. It is possible that the river is far from residential areas which prevent people from coming. No one in this city like to take such inconvenient to drive that long. In addition, perhaps it is not the only river in the city. A wider and longer river is just three miles away which attract crowded people every weekend. 多少感觉没有讲得最到位，是不是可以加一句，比起那条河，这条河就没有吸引力了呢？Without considering every causes of the unpopular circumstance of the river, city council has little likelihood to win citizens' preference only by cleaning up Mason River.

Even we assuming that cleaner the river is, more people will come, we are still suspecting the efficiency of the cleaning project.感觉读完这句TS，不大清楚接下去你想说什么。 From the passage, we can't acquire any information about the main causes of river pollution nor the solutions of government. All we have known is a decision without practical plan and details. The reason causing pollution maybe several: biology problems, chemical construction and trash. Each of these cause need to set up a whole project leaded by experts and using techniques to solve and need politicians to strengthen the management of factory. If the government fails to consider one of the causes or only try to clean the river without cut off the pollution headstream, the solution will be inefficient and very far to attract people.

In addition, if we imagine the river is clear, people taking plenty of activities here, the author still fail to provide causal relationship between popularity of the river and the improvement of lands along river.和前面一段一样，没有完全读懂你的逻辑。 There is no guarantee that the land will be used to hold part of the activities. Maybe people only boating on the river, then they will have no chance to go ashore. People will play in crowd in the popular river and get on land only for a rest. so what?论述不是特别到位，有些懵懂。Moreover, the condition of the publicly owned lands now is unknown. Maybe it is a excellent place already that doesn’t need further investment. The city council doesn't take serious consideration about the land along river and get a hasty generalization.这段较之前两段比较逊色，感觉有些混乱，没有找到你要说的点。

In conclusion, the author fails to build logical relationship between the issues and failing to come up with effective solution. The city council should review the condition and causes of the river pollution and make decision after second thought.

总体不错的，尤其是第一，第二个点。虽然第二个点的TS有些晕，但是后面的论述很简练，我觉得很赞。
就是第三点，我后来看了你的提纲，才真正抓到你的点。


那个，我的I：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1062577-1-1.html
谢谢

换色UID: 2658709

改了第四段，每段TS没有该，因为完全不知道怎么改....