argument137 G-89-互助社-8月4日同主题写作

jason0926UID: 200697

137The 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 concludes that Mason City council  need to increase budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the conclusion, the arguer points out  a survey about the region's residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation. However, this alone neither consititutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor provides compelling support making the argument sound. The arguer ignores certain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, this argument suffers from 3 flaws.

First of all, the survey cited by the arguer is too vague to be reliable. We are not informed that how many people were surveyed. If, for instance, 10 subjects were studied and 2 people echoed, the conclusion would be highly suspectable. Furthermore, the arguer fails to point out how the survey was conducted. If who conducted the survey by themselves or if these questions were leading, people might echo with expected answers, thus the results would be greatly unconvincing.

In addition,whether do people avoid the river only depending on that it is not clean enough? Maybe some other reasons, such as entironment, wind,water temperature etc, lead people not to recreate here. We do not know whether the  the Mason City council  inquire the local people these questions and receive the response timely. If these problems exist surely, the local council not only solve the problem of water quality, but also account for these conformed troubles at the same time.

Finally, the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River, but how long does the plan will take? If this is only a plan and the agency does not to carry out it in short time or will take long times so that make the local people losing their confidence about the river, it, in fact, waste time and money. So if the government conforms the reasons which can attract people palying here, they must put in practice timely and explain the plan to people thoroughly.

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration: make more comprehensive surveys; conform and implement the plans duly. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.

polymathUID: 179557

写的真快！又来一篇！顶一个！今天没时间给你改了！继续加油啊！今天很忙！明天有空帮你看看！:)

polymathUID: 179557

137The 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 concludes that Mason City council  needs to increase its,后面是可数名词budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the conclusion, the arguer points outcites a survey about the region's residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation. However, this alone neither consititutes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion nor provides compelling supports inmaking the argument sound. The arguer ignores certain important concerns, which must be addressed to prove. In my point of view, this argument suffers from 3 flaws.主题把握的还行！

First of all, the survey cited by the arguer is too vague to be reliable. We are not informed that how many people were surveyed. If, for instance, 10 subjects were studied and 2 people echoed, the conclusion would be highly suspectable. Furthermore, the arguer fails to point out how the survey was conducted. If who conducted the survey by themselves or if these questions were leading, people might echo with expected answers, thus the results would be greatly unconvincing.不错！第一罪！

In addition,whether do people avoid the river only depending on that it is not clean enough? Maybe some other reasons, such as entironmentenvironment, wind,water temperature etc, lead people not to recreate here. We do not know whether the  the Mason City council  inquire the local people these questions and receive the response timely. If these problems exist surely, the local council shouldnot only solve the problem of water quality, but also account for these conformed troubles at the same time.2宗罪，

Finally, the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River, but how long does the plan will take? If this is only a plan and the agency does not to 去掉tocarry out it in ashort time or will 去掉willtake long times so that make the local people losing their confidence about the river, it, in fact, waste time and money. So if the government conforms the reasons which can attract people palying here, they must put in practice timely and explain the plan to people thoroughly.中间黑体字需要修改！

To sum up, though the argument seems to be plausible, in fact, it is neither sound nor persuasive. Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims.这几个句子自己写的还是学来的？cites in the analysis the evuidence总觉得有问题。请说明一下！ To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to take the following conditions into consideration: make more comprehensive surveys; conform and implement the plans duly. If the argument includes the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and adequate.最后这句话不该写，写了就是败笔！

ok!总体来说！全文把握住了3大错误，进行有理的批斗，措词比较合理，结构上衔接也还行！注意结尾段的问题！还是一篇不错的文章！:)

jason0926UID: 200697

多谢,Not only does it leave out such key issues, but also cites in the analysis the evidence, which does not lend strong support to what arguer claims.这
是学来的,是新东方一个老师的模板