Argument137 rt860113--Hamming小组第六次作业

rt860113UID: 2256886

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 ofrecreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residentsconsistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favoriteform of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of thewater in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they thinkthat it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agencyresponsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up MasonRiver. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so theMason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to thepublicly owned lands along the Mason River."
WORDS:360          TIME: 0:34:18         DATE: 2006-12-26(病中之作,我会尽快修改~)

This editorial writer in the Mason city newspaper should definitely lose his job,and the newspaper will be blamed also，since it publishes such editorial having so many flaws thatcan be obviously seen. It is clear that its assumption of the upcoming increasein recreational activities is quite illogical. A better-qualified individual might have explored the issue further by doing careful surveys of every aspect.

First of all, a survey of the credibility that most of the residents will rank watersports as their favorite form of recreation again should be carried out.Because of the pollution of the Mason River, some residents gradually lose their interest in the water sports, and it is reasonable to imagine that thelack of such interest will influence the younger, furthermore, the next generation. In the editorial, we cannot find any description about the time forwhich the river has been polluted, so, the influence mentioned above can do the worst as we think.

Moreover,another more crucial factor should be taken into consideration---how long dose the river-cleaning would be taken? A survey revealing the time needed by the project will lend helping hand to the council to make the decision. If the project is a time-consuming one, it would be unwise to burn too much money on the facilities along the riverbank, that’s to say, the council ought to increase its budget for improvements to the ones which are in dire needs.

Finally,even if the two points discussed above have been granted, one factor still remains questionable, is the agency responsible for the river capable to clean up the river. It is only mentioned that they has announced plans, which means,the task has not begun when the editorial is published. It is very dangerous tocome to the conclusion before the agency actually begins to cope with the pollution.

Taking all the factors into account, we can safely draw the conclusion, the writer, orjournalist, of the editorial is a rather careless man. He not only fails to give the persuasive evidence to support his standpoint, but also does something harmful to his future promotion, or, even worse, occupation.

graduate06UID: 2223299

多注意身体，加油！！:)

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

先鼓励下，带病工作是好孩子！

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

This editorial writer in the Mason city newspaper should definitely lose his job, and the newspaper will be blamed also，since it publishes such editorial having so many flaws that can be obviously seen.虽然语言很到位，但是这样开头会不会有点偏？攻击错误是重点吧，攻击作者和报纸？呵呵，开头有意思，但最好谨慎为好。 It is clear that its assumption of the upcoming increase in recreational activities is quite illogical. A better-qualified individual might have explored the issue further by doing careful surveys of every aspect.

First of all, a survey of the credibility that most of the residents will rank water sports as their favorite form of recreation again should be carried out. Because of the pollution of the Mason River, some residents gradually lose their interest in the water sports, and it is reasonable to imagine that the lack of such interest will influence the younger, furthermore, the next generation. In the editorial, we cannot find any description about the time for which the river has been polluted, so, the influence mentioned above can do the worst as we think.

Moreover, another more crucial factor should be taken into consideration---how long dose the river-cleaning would be taken? A survey revealing the time needed by the project will lend helping hand to the council to make the decision. If the project is a time-consuming one, it would be unwise to burn too much money on the facilities along the riverbank, that’s to say, the council ought to increase its budget for improvements to the ones which are in dire needs.

Finally, even if the two points discussed above have been granted, one factor still remains questionable, is the agency responsible for the river capable to clean up the river. It is only mentioned that they has announced plans, which means, the task has not begun when the editorial is published. It is very dangerous to come to the conclusion before the agency actually begins to cope with the pollution. 这个其实还是说工程不知道什么时间能结束，有点和上一段重叠，虽然不是很明显。

Taking all the factors into account, we can safely draw the conclusion, the writer, or journalist, of the editorial is a rather careless man. He not only fails to give the persuasive evidence to support his standpoint, but also does something harmful to his future promotion, or, even worse, occupation.
呵呵，又攻击作者，貌似有点仇？开玩笑哈~
语句变换让我叹服，行文洒脱，但是逻辑错误发掘不够，这个也很重要啊，对文章逻辑错误的较全面考虑，然后重点在这上面吧，攻击作者个人的语言尽量少点，建议写的应该再长点，开头结尾表明自己的观点和建议，不能一味说文章错的多么不能忍受，你说呢？