argument137 请大家指教 互拍:)

ssskyUID: 204142

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.'

1 调查的可靠性
2 council决定的合理性

In this argument, concerning the topic of the recreational function of the Mason River, the arguer provides some evidences and concludes that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvement to the lands along the Mason River. Trough analyzing this argument carefully, I consider it is logically unconvincing in several respects, such as unsubstantiated evidences, problematic survey, and hasty conclusion, as discussed below.

For one thing, the arguer fails to provide more concrete information to increase the credibility of the survey. First, the identities of the conductors of the survey are all unknown to us. Without these information we could not evaluate the authority of this survey. Second, the arguer should provide some valid information concerning the participants, such as  age , gender, and occupation, because these information could improve the reliability of the survey. In short, in the absence of substantial data, the arguer could not conclude that residents in Mason City prefer water sports.

For another, the arguer fails to demonstrate that the council's decision of increasing the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is proper. First, no evidence in this argument indicates the  residents in the Mason City have no places of recreation except the lands along the Mason River. Maybe there are some better recreational places residents could choose, and the project along the Mason River is redundant one. Second, the auger could not validate the lands along the Mason River is suitable to serve as places of recreation. Maybe nearby the river there are a hub of communication, and too much exhaust gas and noise of vehicles, obviously, in this case it is not proper for a place of recreation. Third, on the contrary, it is possible that there are already some recreational places along the Mason River.  Consequently, lacking solid information which supports the decision of increasing the budget, the credibility of the conclusion is suspicious.

In sum, in this argument the arguer fails to demonstrate the legitimacy of the budget, and to strengthen the conclusion the arguer must show that residents in Mason City really rank water sports as a favourite form of recreation and that the project of improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is propose.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-5 at 03:00 ]

helen300300UID: 207069

我觉得你的正文的第一部分还应该再展开一下，举几个可能的反例，这样既能更充分的论证，还能增加字数，
比如，
第一个说调查不权威可以说可能是个中学生的课堂作业。
第二部分说没有提供被试的年龄、性别、职业，可以写一下，会出现什么后果，比如说很多是小孩子说喜欢water sports，但事实上家长出于安全考虑，可能不会让他们在河上作水上运动，等等

正文的第二部分写的很不错，值得借鉴。论证的很充分

其实这道题可以驳斥的地方很多，还质疑agency的工作能力，以及地区的财政实力，能否同时投资两个项目，还有河的情况，可能这条河的自然状况不适合水上运动，水流太急，水面太窄，或者水里有危险的动物等等。

我8月15号就要考了，现在的水平还很烂，真是急死了。以后相互学习，谢谢你帮我改文章！！

ssskyUID: 204142

呵呵  谢谢你的砖

大家一起加油:)