argument137 求拍~~

xuanivyUID: 2789600

周一考，请求帮助啊~~
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."
WORDS: 496
TIME: 00:28:26
DATE: 2010/4/8 0:39:01

In this argument the arguer draws a conclusion that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget on the public lands along the Mason River. The author's opinion is based on the prediction that the Mason River would be used for recreational activities more frequently. In order to demonstrate his conclusion, the author provides us some evidence, however, the argument is not persuasive because of three fallacies.

To begin with, the causal relationship between terrible quality of the water in the river and few entertaiment activities bulit by the author is not a proper one. Other factors rather than bad quality of the water could prevent the residents from using the river for recreational activities.
For example, it may be the location of the river that cause people less likely to have fun along the river. The river may be located far from the down town and it would take a long time for residents to go there. In addition, the river may be a symbol of the city and the residents really care about the environment situations of the river, thus they do not want to gather along the river. Without considering all these possible factors, the author could not conclude that it is the bad quality of the water that causes the current situation.

In addition, granted that it is the bad quality of the water that keeps people from taking entertaiment activities along the river, the author could not make sure that the situation would turn to be better in the future by only providing us an annoucement of the agency. As is known to all, plans proposed by the angency may be affected by many aspects such as financial burden and the public's opinions. Perhaps the city does not have enough money to fufill such a plan and the agency's announcement makes no sense. On the other hand, the public's opinions also have vital effects. Maybe the majority of residents would not support this plan because there are other affairs more urgent. The author ignores all these potential factors so that his conclusion is not convincing.

Furthermore, even if the quality of the water could increase and meet the people's demand in the coming years, the author fails to convince us that the publicly owned lands need improvements. The arguer does not give us any data concentrated on the situations of public lands. As a result, we do not know how many lands would be used and weather improvements are necessary. Water sports would not require too many lands and perhaps the public lands are in an extremely good situation. Without giving us more detailed data, the author could not draw such a conclusion.

To sum up, the author should give us more data concerning the public lands and detailed investigation on the river is essential, thus we could evaluate the situation fairly. In addition, an effective survey on the residents' real attitudes towards the Mason Rriver is recommended.

cooltozeroUID: 2705603

语言标准，展开充分，很不错啊。。。
      考场上我要是能写这么多就好了！！加油！！

Eileen12361UID: 2775275

能在半小时打出这么多字确实很不容易哦~ 整体很好，但是我觉得有几个小问题。
第一，首段没有复述argument的主要逻辑。因为居民抱怨水质不好，同时居民很少在此娱乐，因此作者断言是水不干净导致的。（其实这里有个偷换概念，水质不好不仅仅是不干净哦~）然后当局宣称要洁净河流计划，因此作者推断水边娱乐会增加且council需要加大财政投入。
第二，第一个逻辑错误论证的不是很有力。。。远没有第二个那么考虑全面且说服力强。个人觉得因果错误是很大的错误，还是要强调下下哦~
第三，有一个错误好像被遗忘了。。作者推断河边娱乐会增加有一个隐藏的前提假设：水质一定会变好。但是我读你的感觉好像侧重在计划不一定能实施方面。
还有一些单词拼写小错误在考场上难免，但是我觉得关键词还是一定要写对。比如 entertaiment 。

只是一些个人意见仅供参考哈~ 以下是我的修改，555 words。 尽量不动你的框架。。。当然也有漏洞，我们一起make it perfect~ :p

In this argument the arguer draws a conclusion that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget on the public lands along the Mason River for the increasing recreational use of the river. In order to demonstrate his conclusion, the author provides us some evidences, that the residents seldom make recreational activities for the reason that the river is not clean enough. The arguer often cites the announced plans aiming at cleaning up the river by the agency. The author’s conclusion that the recreational use of the river will increase and claims that the council increase its budget, which seems logical at first glance, however, is not persuasive because of three fallacies.
To begin with, the causal relationship between unclean water in the river and few entertainment activities bulit by the author is not a proper one. The evidence provided is insufficient to conclude the former causes the latter. Other factors rather than bad quality of the water  are also likely to prevent the residents from using the river for recreational activities.
The residents take water sports as a favorite form of recreation but it is not necessarily for them to play along the Mason River, may be they have better alternatives, for instance, there may exit another river or a park more convenient for recreation. It may also be the location of the river that causes people less likely to have fun along the river. Perhaps they cannot afford the time or the climate is not suitable at present. Without considering all these possible factors, the author could not conclude that it is the bad quality of the water that causes the current situation.


In addition, granted that it is the bad quality of the water that keeps people from taking entertainment activities along the river, the author could not guarantee that the plan would effectively achieve its goal of cleaning up the river and residents would like to play here only by providing us an announcement of the agency. Another problem is whether the plan could be carried out and how long does it take. As is known to all, plans proposed by the angency may be affected by many aspects such as financial burden and the public opinions. The author ignores all these potential factors that render his conclusion unconvincing.

Furthermore, even if the quality of the water could increase and meet the people's demand in the coming years, the author fails to convince us that the publicly owned lands need improvements. The arguer does not give us any data regarding the current situations of public lands. As a result, we do not know how many lands would be used and whether improvements are necessary. Water sports would not require too many lands and perhaps the public lands are in an extremely good situation. Without giving us more detailed information, the author could not draw a compelling conclusion.

To sum up, to make an persuasive claim, more specific information concerning the Mason Rriver and public lands as well as more detailed investigation of residents’ hobbies are necessary . In addition, an effective survey on the residents' real attitudes towards the issue is recommended for us to evaluate the situation fairly. Therefore, if the arguer had take into all the possible alternatives, the argument would be more thorough and logically acceptable.