argument137 第二次限时基本成功 请拍砖

alcestisUID: 2101945

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."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this argument the arguer assume the fact that the residents of Mason City who are believed to be water sports lovers seldom use Mason River for recreational activity due to they think the river was not clean enough. And the arguer further claims that the situation is about to change for plans to clean up the river has been announced. Thus, the arguer draws the conclusion that the recreation use of the water will probably increase and the city council should increase budget for improving the public owned lands along the river. This is a problematic conclusion based on several unfounded assumptions.

Firstly, based on a survey, the arguer assert that the residents of Mason love water sport, but no information of the survey is provided, such as who conducted the survey, when was the survey conducted, how many people responded to the survey, and can the respondents represent all the citizens of Mason. Without the information above, we can not be sure that the survey is reliable, thus, we can not be certain that the residents of Mason truly prefer water sports. And maybe it is just because they do not love water sports so they seldom use Mason River for recreational activity.

Secondly, even if the residents are all water sports lovers, the arguer fails to establish a cause and effect relationship between the poor quality of the water and the low frequency of river using. There may be a host of other reasons for the residents to avoid using the river for recreational activity. It is possible that the river is too shallow for boating, to cold for swimming, or too noisy for fishing. And maybe the weather in Mason is so severe, that the river is frozen for most of the years, and waterside recreational activity like swimming and boating can hardly be done. And maybe it is because of the terrible environment along the river cease people to go to the river and play.

Thirdly, admitting that the seldom usage of Mason River for recreational activity is indeed caused by the poor quality of the water. The arguer cannot convince me that the situation will change soon after the announcement of the cleaning up plan. The residents of Mason who already have aversion towards the dirty river may not change their mind so easily. Probably only when the government carries out the plan and truly reverses situation of Mason River, will the residents begin to enjoy themselves in Mason River.

Fourthly, it is unfair for the arguer to assert that the government should increase the budget on river side public owned land as a result of the possible raise of river using. Maybe the public owned land is just a small portion in the total waterside land, the improvement on them will do little to help attract more people, or maybe the waterside land owned by the public is already in good condition, enough to satisfy most of the residents. Without precluding the situation above, the arguer can not say for sure that more investment on public owned land along Manson River is needed.

All in all, if the arguer does not provide more evidence about the situation of Mason residents as well as the condition of Mason River, and adjust the conclusion, this argument is completely a failure.


自评：
第二次限时 超了一两分钟 有色的段落是后来写的
还算言之有物
花在开头上的时间和笔墨都太多了 导致有一个错误没有来得及批
比第一次限时效果好得多，因为下笔之前思路就比较清楚~~继续加油ing

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-5 at 08:33 ]

liulin12369UID: 2112878

有一点问题，b2说就算喜欢水上运动，不一定是水质不好引起不使用河水。这样和b3接起来不算恰当

shanekunUID: 2104358

In this argument the arguer assume the fact that the residents of Mason City who are believed to be water sports lovers seldom use Mason River for recreational activity due to (because that) they think the river was not clean enough. And the arguer further claims that the situation is about to change for plans to clean up the river has been announced. Thus, the arguer draws the conclusion that the recreation use of the water will probably increase and the city council should increase budget for improving the public owned lands along the river. This is a problematic conclusion based on several unfounded assumptions.这里不妨把两句话并成一句：according to the agency's claim........, the arguer concluds/suggets/predicts
Firstly, based on a survey, the arguer assert that the many residents of Mason love water sport, but no information of the survey is provided, such as who conducted the survey, when was the survey conducted, how many people responded to the survey, and can the respondents represent all the citizens of Mason. Without the information above, we can not be sure that the survey is reliable, thus, we can not be certain that the residents of Mason truly prefer water sports. (这里最好讲一下有哪些可能导致survey无效)And maybe it is just because they do not love water sports so they seldom use Mason River for recreational activity.

Secondly, even if the residents are all （many citizens, 我觉得这里作者要强调的是有，而不是全部是，不知道你的看法如何？）water sports lovers, the arguer fails to establish a cause and effect relationship between the poor quality of the water and the low frequency of river using. There may be a host of other reasons for the residents to avoid using the river for recreational activity. It is possible that the river is too shallow for boating, to cold for swimming, or too noisy for fishing. And maybe the weather in Mason is so （harsh？）severe, that the river is frozen for most of the years, and waterside recreational activity like swimming and boating can hardly be done. And maybe it is because of the terrible environment along the river cease people to go to the river and play.(要是再深入，具体一点就更有说服力了)

Thirdly, admitting that the seldom usage of Mason River for recreational activity is indeed caused by the poor quality of the water. The arguer cannot convince me that the situation will change soon after the announcement of the cleaning up plan. The residents of Mason who already have aversion towards the dirty river may not change their mind so easily. Probably only when the government carries out the plan and truly reverses situation of Mason River, will the residents begin to enjoy themselves in Mason River.(这段我个人感觉例子说的不够convicing,不如讲一讲工程中可能遇到的问题，如财政拨款，用地规划。。。以及治理以后的水质到底怎么样，是不是就适合活动了。。)

Fourthly, it is unfair for the arguer to assert that the government should increase the budget on river side public owned land as a result of the possible raise of river using. Maybe the public owned land is just a small portion in the total waterside land, the improvement on them will do little to help attract more people, or maybe the waterside land owned by the public is already in good condition, enough to satisfy most of the residents. Without precluding the situation above, the arguer can not say for sure that more investment on public owned land along Manson River is needed.（这段写的不错，我就没有太明白题目里的improvements to the publicly owned lands到底什么意思，我理解是投资负责公共设施的建设？请指点。 ）

All in all, if (这里就是没有吧，不如把错误讲明确，)the arguer does not provide more evidence about the situation of Mason residents as well as the condition of Mason River, and adjust the conclusion, this argument is completely a failure.

楼主的通篇条理很清楚，语言也不错，在分析的时候要是能再把反例和它因演绎的更深入一些，就更好了。请帮忙也看看我的，好像写的字数不多，还有3天就考了，赶紧练习找感觉。。https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=312542

echostateUID: 194935

In this argument the arguer assume the fact that the residents of Mason City who are believed to be water sports lovers seldom use Mason River for recreational activity due to they think the river was not clean enough. And the arguer further claims that the situation is about to change for plans to clean up the river has been announced. Thus, the arguer draws the conclusion that the recreation use of the water will probably increase and the city council should increase budget for improving the public owned lands along the river. This is a problematic conclusion based on several unfounded assumptions.

Firstly, based on a survey, the arguer assert that the residents of Mason love water sport, but no information of the survey is provided, such as who conducted the survey, when was the survey conducted, how many people responded to the survey, and can the respondents represent all the citizens of Mason. Without the information above, we can not be sure that the survey is reliable, thus, we can not be certain that the residents of Mason truly prefer water sports. And maybe it is just because they do not love water sports so they seldom use Mason River for recreational activity.
[
对于survey，一些前人，特别是gter的斑竹建议说，几个固定的攻击点是屡试不爽的，比如conductor、数量、随机性、调查过程、甚至什么数据处理方式……见到survey劈头就砍这些。
这些质疑的点，确实是“屡试不爽”的点，可以称之为泛化的错误，即是个survey基本就能攻击。比如，conductor吧，题目没提，就可以怀疑他的中立性。但是，我记得有些argument里面是明显给出了conductor非中立的，我觉得在这种时候攻击conductor是最号的。而当argu里面没提survey的conductor时候，就不管三七二十一质疑，我觉得有点鸡蛋里挑骨头的感觉。
再比如，人家survey里如果说了，测试了500人，我们自然可以质疑样本数量。如果人家survey里没提数量，我们在文章中套模板似的，上来就质疑数量，然后若“if the number of sample is not large enough, for instance, only 100 respondents …….”。至少我觉得这么攻击，不是砍在要害：）
]

[当然，也听说过这种说法，“虽然这些质疑很弱智，是个survey能用，没什么技术含量，但是你说，老外就认为你弱智~~~~~”]

Secondly, even if the residents are all water sports lovers, the arguer fails to establish a cause and effect relationship between the poor quality of the water and the low frequency of river using. There may be a host of other reasons for the residents to avoid using the river for recreational activity. It is possible that the river is too shallow for boating, to cold for swimming, or too noisy for fishing [good~~~~~~shallow, cold, noisy~~~admire一下]. And maybe the weather in Mason is so severe, that the river is frozen for most of the years, and waterside recreational activity like swimming and boating can hardly be done[这个点也可以，不过多少和too cold for swimming有点重复，虽然讲得是结冰的问题]. And maybe it is because of the terrible environment along the river cease people to go to the river and play [冷实际上也是terrible environment 的一种，所以这个质疑点和上面的有点重迭。最好每个质疑点是相互独立的].

Thirdly, admitting that the seldom usage of Mason River for recreational activity is indeed caused by the poor quality of the water. The arguer cannot convince me that the situation will change soon after the announcement of the cleaning up plan. The residents of Mason who already have aversion towards the dirty river may not change their mind so easily. Probably only when the government carries out the plan and truly reverses situation of Mason River, will the residents begin to enjoy themselves in Mason River [实际上，文章中用了announce，宣称，这么一个词，说白了就是把屁股量出来让你打的感觉，所以还是打一下比较好——政府官员的宣称，诺言，显然是不可相信的——借用刚才的一句话——这个质疑点很弱智，但是你不质疑的话，判卷人认为你很弱智~~~~：P].

Fourthly, it is unfair for the arguer to assert that the government should increase the budget on river side public owned land as a result of the possible raise of river using. Maybe the public owned land is just a small portion in the total waterside land, the improvement on them will do little to help attract more people, or maybe the waterside land owned by the public is already in good condition, enough to satisfy most of the residents. Without precluding the situation above, the arguer can not say for sure that more investment on public owned land along Manson River is needed.

All in all, if the arguer does not provide more evidence about the situation of Mason residents as well as the condition of Mason River, and adjust the conclusion, this argument is completely a failure. [欣赏这种简洁的结尾。但是你的开头好像还是很俗套的新东方开头——复述结论，列举原因，然后否定一下~~~一定要这样吗？我宁可把时间省下来多构思，多改拼写错误。]

echostateUID: 194935

请指教，写得没你好。因为我现在连得太少。从今天开始
每天2篇~~~
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... p;page=1#pid1701705