argument137 hugo010311--hamming小组no.6路过的拍啊！

hugo010311UID: 2237388

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."
Outline:
1.       complaints与the residents be avoiding to the river之间无因果
2.       plan与the increase of the recreational use of water activity 之间无因果
3.       The increase of the recreational use of the river与 council need to increase its budget for improvement to the lands along the river之间无因果
WORDS: 511        
The author claims that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvement to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, because he assumes that recreational use of the river is likely to increase. To support this assertion, the author points out residents must be avoiding the river because of the complaints of the quality of the water in the river. And then the author cites the evidence that the agency responsible for rivers has announced plans to clean up Mason River. However, this argument contains several logical flaws which render it unconvincing.

First of all, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the complaints about the quality of the water in the river and the fact that residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity. The author overlooks other factors that may cause that residents avoid the river. It is quite possible that the river is use for transportation or trip on water. Thus it is difficult to conduct recreational activity. Grant that the quality of the water in the river is poor some recreational activities do not call for such high quality of the water, such as fishing and boating. Without ruling out such scenarios, the author convinces us little.

In addition, the author provides little evidence that recreational use of the river is likely to increase due to the plans announced by the agency to clear up the river. It is true that the plan to clear up the water in the river is announced by an agency, but it does not means that the plan is about to be settled at once and it will works well enough to resolve the problem of quality of the water, let alone perhaps there are no causal relationship between the quality of the water and the recreation. Lacking compelling evidence that the plan will actually increase recreational activities, the author cannot simply draw this conclusion.

Finally, even assuming recreational use of the river is likely to increase it is unfair to conclude that Mason City council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River are already well enough. Thus it needs not any improvement any longer. Without taking into account such possibility, the author cannot simply assert that Mason City council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasively reasoned as it stands. To better assess it, the author must provides more striking evidence that the decrease of the recreational use of the river is actually attributed to the quality of water in the river, and he should also substantiate the causal relationship between the plan and the increase of recreational use of the river. To strengthen it, we also need more compelling evidence that due to recreational use of the river is about to increase it is necessary for Mason City to increase its budget to improve lands along the Mason River.

graduate06UID: 2223299

刚才我看错了，还以为你标错题号了，哈。

[ 本帖最后由 graduate06 于 2006-12-26 00:04 编辑 ]

liquidshileUID: 2254332

The author claims that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvement to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, because he assumes that recreational use of the river is likely to increase. To support this assertion, the author points out residents must be avoiding the river because of the complaints of the quality of the water in the river. And then the author cites the evidence that the agency responsible for rivers has announced plans to clean up Mason River. However, this argument contains several logical flaws which render it unconvincing.

First of all, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the complaints about the quality of the water in the river and the fact that residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity. The author overlooks other factors that may cause that residents avoid the river. It is quite possible that the river is use for transportation or trip on water. Thus it is difficult to conduct recreational activity. Grant that the quality of the water in the river is poor这里是不时应该断开 some recreational activities do not call for such high quality of the water, such as fishing and boating. Without ruling out such scenarios, the author convinces us little.

In addition, the author provides little evidence that recreational use of the river is likely to increase due to the plans announced by the agency to clear up the river. It is true that the plan to clear up the water in the river is announced by an agency, but it does not means that the plan is about to be settled at once and it will works well enough to resolve the problem of quality of the water, let alone perhaps there are no causal relationship between the quality of the water and the recreation. Lacking compelling evidence that the plan will actually increase recreational activities, the author cannot simply draw this conclusion.

Finally, even assuming recreational use of the river is likely to increase it is unfair to conclude that Mason City council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River are already well enough. Thus it needs not any improvement any longer. Without taking into account such possibility, the author cannot simply assert that Mason City council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasively reasoned as it stands. To better assess it, the author must provides more striking evidence that the decrease of the recreational use of the river is actually attributed to the quality of water in the river, and he should also substantiate the causal relationship between the plan and the increase of recreational use of the river. To strengthen it, we also need more compelling evidence that due to recreational use of the river is about to increase it is necessary for Mason City to increase its budget to improve lands along the Mason River.开头结尾太长了没有必要restate

你的两篇文章几乎都没有什么错误，相当合乎规矩了，如果限时完成的话，水平不一般啊！