- 最后登录
- 2007-8-13
- 在线时间
- 0 小时
- 寄托币
- 2315
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2005-8-19
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 帖子
- 6
- 精华
- 1
- 积分
- 2083
- UID
- 2130338
 
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 2315
- 注册时间
- 2005-8-19
- 精华
- 1
- 帖子
- 6
|
Argument137 第7篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧!
------摘要------
作者:寄托家园作文版普通用户 共用时间:31分57秒 408 words
从2006年6月4日13时1分到2006年6月4日13时31分
------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------
The arguer recommends Mason City council to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support this conclusion, the arguer associates the seldom used Mason River with the complaints about the quality of river water, and claims that recreational use of the river is likely to increase once the water is cleaned. However, the arguer's recommendation is not convincing enough to be accepted by Mason City council.
First of all, it is unverified to attribute the seldom used Mason River to the quality of river water. Although there have been complaints about the quality of the water, the seldom use of the river can be induced by other factors, such as the preference of residents and other safety problems. On one hand, the credibility and representability of the survey mentioned in the editorial, which indicates that the residents of Mason City consistently rank water sports, should be carefully examined. On the other hand, assuming that the residents like water sports, such as swimming, fishing, and boating, no information demonstrates that the river can satisfy their needs even it is not polluted. The currents in the river may be too dangerous for residents to carry out swimming or boating, while the river may have no fish at all. As a result, without carefully studying the inclinations of residents and the status of the river, it is too arbitrary to assert that the seldom used river results from the complaints of the water quality.
Besides, even if the seldom use of Mason River results from the poor quality of river water, it is unreasonable to deduce that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase after the water cleaning project. Though the agency responsible for rivers has announced to clean up Mason River, no one ensures the water quality after the cleaning project. Moreover, no additional information shows that residents will believe the water quality after such a project, and begin to use the river to carry out swimming, fishing, or boating.
Furthermore, even if the recreational use of the rive will increase, no evidence indicates that it is necessary to increase the city council's budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. The arguer fails to exhibit the current situation of such publicly owned lands, which may be good enough to be used without any increase of budget.
In conclusion, the arguer's recommendation is not substantiated enough to convince the Mason City council to increase the budget for improving the publicly owned lands along Mason River. |
|