Argument137 （12月作文高强组——好好学习，天天作文）

一月一号UID: 2148376

阿狗又超了几分钟，没写完结尾
TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - 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."
WORDS: 478          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-12-20

The argument above is not cogent as it stands. The author's conclusion that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase is base on the assumption that people use the nearby Mason River seldom because they think the river is not clean enough, which is unwarranted. Besides, the haste generalization that the government should increase its budget to improve lands along the river is another fallacy the arguer commits.
First, the author establishes a false causal relationship between the decease of recreation activity along the river and the complaints about the quality of water in the river, though they happened at the same time. There is no any direct information about people why decease their recreational activity along the Mason river. It is likely that it was winter then and people would not go out to have entertainment along the river due to the cold weather. Thus, it is not the quality of water in the river impede them having fun there. Besides, the author also fails to provide the exact number of people who complaint the quality of river and what concretely they complaint. It id possible that people complaint the quality of water because they use water in the river for daily life use, like cooking, washing and so forth. Thus, they would have a much higher level demand of the quality of the water than people just play there. Maybe the quality of the river is not so dirty as the author claims. Without excluding all these possibilities, the author hardly can convince us his conclusion that residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough.
Besides, even if people decrease the activity along the river because they think water there is not clean enough, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, we cannot conclude that the recreation use of the river would increase after the agency clean up. The author does not provide any information about the agency. Whether they can finish their job as the author wish? Whether the quality of water can be cleaned up in short time? Whether the government has approved this agency clean up this river? Whether people would come back to the river even if the agency clean up the river since they have been disappointed about this river? Is there any other river can replace the use of Mason River and people would not come back even the water is clean there? Unfortunately, there are no answers to these questions.
To get further, even if the water's quality of the river can be restored and people would come back to have recreational activity, there is no evidence to indicate that the government should increase its budget to improve the lands along the river. It is likely that the lands are wide enough for the visitors and thus we do not need to improve the publicity owned lands as the author advocates.
In sum, this argument is not cogent because of its logical fallacies and incomprehensive consideration. More surveys about why people decrease their visit to Mason River, the capability of the agency and the need to improve the lands along the river are needed.

waidswUID: 2256074

The argument above is not cogent as it stands. The author's conclusion that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase is base on the assumption that people use the nearby Mason River seldom because they think the river is not clean enough, which is unwarranted. Besides, the haste (hasty) generalization that the government should increase its budget to improve lands along the river is another fallacy the arguer commits.

First, the author establishes a false causal relationship between the decease of recreation activity (原文好象没有提到decrease吧！)along the river and the complaints about the quality of water in the river, though they happened at the same time. There is no（not）any direct information about people why decease their recreational activity along the Mason river.（原文只说avoid, 没有说decrease） It is likely that it was winter then and people would not go out to have entertainment along the river due to the cold weather. Thus, it is not the quality of water in the river impede them having fun there. Besides, the author also fails to provide the exact number of people who complaint the quality of river and what concretely they complaint. It id（is） possible that people complaint the quality of water because they use water in the river for daily life use, like cooking, washing and so forth. Thus, they would have a much higher level demand of the quality of the water than people just play there. Maybe the quality of the river is not so dirty as the author claims. (呵呵，河水做饭啊！，我觉得河水肯定是不好的， 所以后面才有clean up嘛，关键是干净了是不是会有人去玩。)  Without excluding all these possibilities, the author hardly can convince us his conclusion that residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough.

Besides, even if people decrease the activity along the river because they think water there is not clean enough, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, we cannot conclude that the recreation use of the river would increase after the agency clean up.（这里有问题， 你都说了after the clean up, 后面怎么有疑问agency 能不能完成呢） The author does not provide any information about the agency. Whether they can finish their job as the author wish? Whether the quality of water can be cleaned up in short time? Whether the government has approved this agency clean up this river? Whether people would come back to the river even if the agency clean up the river since they have been disappointed about this river? Is there any other river can replace the use of Mason River and people would not come back even the water is clean there? Unfortunately, there are no answers to these questions.（这最后一点还不错， 但可以在论述是否是因为河脏而不来玩时提及。）

To get further, even if the water's quality of the river can be restored and people would come back to have recreational activity, there is no evidence to indicate that the government should increase its budget to improve the lands along the river. It is likely that the lands are wide enough（？为什么是wide enough, 又没说要expand） for the visitors and thus we do not need to improve the publicity owned lands as the author advocates.

In sum, this argument is not cogent because of its logical fallacies and incomprehensive consideration. More surveys about why people decrease their visit to Mason River, the capability of the agency and the need to improve the lands along the river are needed.

总的来说还不错， 句式语言比较成熟了，但逻辑方面我认为还有可推敲的地方。

一月一号UID: 2148376

呵呵，对哦
要是考试这样就死了
我现在还是没有时间检查，估计的减少些字数