argument137 同主题 拍一下吧，必回！

one way streetUID: 194590

------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the author concludes that recreational use of Mason river is likely to increase and suggests the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. However, the reasoning suffers several fallacies and is not as conceiving as it stands.

First of all, the argument fails to establish the causal relationship between the recreational use of Mason River and the quality of the water in the river. The author claims that Mason City residents seldom use the river for any kind of recreational activity is because the quality of the water in the river is not satisfied the citizens. However, the author provides insufficient evidence and can not bolster the conclusion. There may have other reasons for the little recreational use of the river such as the position of the river is too far to achieve, the riverbed is too low to have recreational activities, the equipment in this river is too old to make use of and so forth. Thus, without displaying enough evidence, it is unreliable to assert that residents’ avoiding the river because they think that the water is not clean enough.

In the second place, the author fails to convince me that citizens will increase the use of Mason River after the agency announcing the plans to clean up the river. As the argument said, it is just a plan and its feasibility, funds consuming, construction steps, design faculties and other factors all are unknown. In the absence of such information, we can hardly believe that the plan maked out by the agency will undoubtedly change the situation of Mason River and citizens will use the river more for recreational activities.

In the third place, the survey cited in this argument may incredible. We are not noted about when, where and how the survey is conducted. What is more, the number of the people that have been surveyed is unknown and the argument does not indicate what portion of the people engaged in the survey actually responded; the smaller the portion, the less reliable the results. Therefore, I can not find out that it is true that the region's residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation, maybe just part of them think so.

All in all, the argument is not well reasoned. Before we accept the conclusion, the author should present more relevant evidence and organized the whole reasoning logically.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-6 at 14:09 ]

lychee_columbiaUID: 198238

In this argument, the author concludes that recreational use of Mason river is likely to increase and suggests thatthe Mason City council (will need to)should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. However, the reasoning suffers several fallacies and is not as conceiving as it stands.

First of all, the argument fails to establish the causal relationship between the recreational use of Mason River and the quality of the water in the river. The author claims that the reason why the residents there (Mason City residents )seldom use the river for any kind of recreational activity is because of the poor quality of the watert(he quality of the water in the river is not satisfied the citizens). However, the author didn't provide sufficient eviednce which can corroborate this assumption. (insufficient evidence and can not bolster the conclusion). There may (have)be much more other reasons for the sterile usage of Mason river for(little) recreation (use of the river) such as the remote position of the river (is too far to achieve), the low riverbed which is not suitable for entertainment use(is too low to have recreational activities), the out datedequipment in this river( is too old to make use of )and so forth. Thus, without displaying enough evidence, it is unreliable to assert that residents’ avoiding the river isbecause they think that the water is not clean enough.

In the second place, the author also fails to convince the readers that citizens will (increase the use of)begin to have their "water sports" on Mason River after the agency announcing the plans to clean up the river. As the argument said, it is just a plan and its feasibility, funds consuming, construction steps, design faculties and other factors all are unknown. In the absence of such information, we can hardly believe that the plan maked out by the agency will undoubtedly change the situation of Mason River and citizens will use the river more for recreational activities.我想这里我们其实可以从另一个方面来说明，机构提出的建议或许可行，但是我们也应当考虑人们的对于水上活动的要求不单单是只要有河就可以，或许他们喜欢的是海上运动，更也许这个小镇本身就在海的边上，这样，这条河的存在本身并不是一件特别重要的事情了。

In the third place, the survey cited in this argument may incredible. We are not noted about when, where and how the survey iswas conducted. What is more, the number of the people that have been surveyed is unknown and the argument does not indicate what portion of the people engaged in the survey actually responded; the smaller the portion, the less reliable the results. Therefore, Iwe can not find out thatwhether it is true that the region's residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation, maybe just part of them think so.

All in all, the argument is not well reasoned. Before we accept the conclusion, the author should present more relevant evidence and organized the whole reasoning logically.

lychee_columbiaUID: 198238

我其实也不是很清楚，就要考试了还想煮粥一样糊涂
不管怎么样大家加油吧：）

czl223UID: 2120177

argument137 同主题 拍一下吧，必回！

------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the author concludes that recreational use of Mason river is likely to increase and suggests the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. However, the reasoning suffers from several fallacies and is not as conceiving as it stands.开头简洁，说出了错误

First of all, the argument fails to establish the causal relationship between the recreational use of Mason River and the quality of the water in the river. The author claims that Mason City residents seldom use the river for any kind of recreational activity is because the quality of the water in the river is not satisfied satisfactory to the citizens. However, the author provides insufficient evidence and and 改为that can not bolster the conclusion. There may have other reasons for the little recreational use of the river such as the position of the river is too far to achieve,这句话有问题是太远以至不能达到么，改一下 the riverbed is too low to have recreational activities, the equipment in this river is too old to make use of and so forth. Thus, without displaying enough evidence, it is unreliable to assert that residents’ avoiding the river because they think that the water is not clean enough.最好不要一直用题目中的句子，稍微改变一下。
问题找的不错，逻辑也行。
In the second place, the author fails to convince me that citizens will increase the use of Mason River after the agency announcing the plans to clean up the river. As the argument said, it is just a plan and its feasibility, funds consuming, construction steps, design faculties and other factors all are unknown. In the absence of such information, we can hardly believe that the plan maked 是worked 吧out by the agency will undoubtedly change the situation of Mason River and citizens will use the river more for recreational activities.

In the third place, the survey cited in this argument may incredible. We are not noted about when, where and how the survey is conducted. What is more, the number of the people that have been surveyed is unknown and the argument does not indicate what portion of the people engaged in the survey actually responded; the smaller the portion, the less reliable the results.太多人这么写了，小心啊 Therefore, I can not find out that it is true that the region's residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation, maybe just part of them think so.
这边攻击survey是可以，不过和上一段就不是很连接了。如果攻击即使来的人多了，也未必就要增加budget啊，可能够了，可能lands已经很好了，可能增加了对提高增加来娱乐的人数没什么用啊，等等
All in all, the argument is not well reasoned. Before we accept the conclusion, the author should present more relevant evidence and organized the whole reasoning logically.
结尾是个不错的模板啊，可直接套用，不错

one way streetUID: 194590

非常感谢lychee_columbia，看了你的修改真是...汗...原来句子还可以找出这么多错误，
修改很认真，非常感谢！
“我想这里我们其实可以从另一个方面来说明，机构提出的建议或许可行，但是我们也应当考虑人们的对于水上活动的要求不单单是只要有河就可以，或许他们喜欢的是海上运动，更也许这个小镇本身就在海的边上，这样，这条河的存在本身并不是一件特别重要的事情了。”这个建议很很好，可以扩展论证宽度。谢谢！
很多句子修改了感觉是顺畅了，我会仔细改的！
你的文章呢？留下链接帮你看啊！
水平有限，多多包涵！

one way streetUID: 194590

非常感谢！还好，这次你没有批的我体无完肤。:)
你说“最好不要一直用题目中的句子，稍微改变一下”，很有道理的，但考试中这样一粘就好了，很省时间，也是逼不得已啊！有什么好建议吗？

还有就是那个对于survey的批评很多人写，是不是就像没说一样啊？或是什么别的原因？

“如果攻击即使来的人多了，也未必就要增加budget啊，可能够了，可能lands已经很好了，可能增加了对提高增加来娱乐的人数没什么用啊，等等 ”很好的建议

ps:最后一段是随便写的，没有模板，实在是写不动那么一大堆了...

one way streetUID: 194590

对了，你有什么文章觉得我可以修改的尽管说啊！尽力而为！
在我文章后面跟链接也可以。
多谢支持！

czl223UID: 2120177

狠狠得批啊
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... highlight=%2Bczl223

czl223UID: 2120177

the smaller the portion, the less reliable the results.太多人这么写了，小心啊
我说的是这句话