Argument137 sisong2003--Hamming小组第6周作业

sisong2003UID: 2154005

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:413         TIME: 上午 00:45:00          DATE: 2006-12-26
提纲：
1.       居民不去MR运动不一定是河水问题，可能有更好去处
2.       治理河水计划结果不一定会改善现状
3.       建议增加预算太草率了
In this argument, the author claims that seldom use of Mason river (MR) for recreational activity is mainly due to the poor water quality of this river. And the author also claims that residents will take more activities in the MR for the improving plans, and the city council needs to increase the budget for the public lands' improvement along the Mason river. However, several flaws in this argument render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author unfairly claims the seldom use of MR for recreational activity is caused by the water pollution of the river. However the author provides little information about this except the complaints about the quality of the water. It is entirely possible that Mason City is a seashore city and there are also several lakes there. So residents are more preferred to play in the sea or lakes. Also, perhaps the MR is not suitable for water sports for its light water depth and narrow river width. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author can not convince us the quality of the water is the primary cause.

In addition, even if the water is not clean enough, the results of the cleaning up plans are open to doubt. We are not informed the degree of the water pollution. And it is very possible that these plans may take such a long time to have effect. So the change of this situation may take quite a long time. Moreover, perhaps the quality of water improves greatly after the long time treatment, but it is still not clean enough for the water sports. Accordingly, this situation will not change at all for the unsuitable water condition. Without proving more information about the effectiveness of the cleaning up plans, the author convinces me little.

Finally, the author hastily generalizes that the city council should increase the budget for the improvements of the publicly owned lands along the MR. Perhaps the publicly owned lands along the MR are quite good enough for the increasing recreational use. Lacking concrete information of the current public lands’ condition, the author’s recommendation of increasing budget is unwarranted.

In sum, as it stands the argument is not persuasive for several logical fallacies. To strengthen it, the author must provide more compelling evidence about the causal relationship of the water quality and little recreational use of the MR. To better evaluate this argument, the author must provide more information on the effectiveness of the water cleaning up plans.

ScorpionSkyUID: 2273954

n this argument, the author claims that seldom use of Mason river (MR) for recreational activity is mainly due to the poor water quality of this river. And the author also claims that residents will take more activities in the MR for (用after更好吧)  the improving plans, and the city council needs to increase the budget for the public lands' improvement along the Mason river. However, several flaws in this argument render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author unfairly claims the seldom use of MR for recreational activity is caused by the water pollution of the river. However the author provides little information about this except the complaints about the quality of the water. It is entirely possible that Mason City is a seashore city and there are also several lakes there. So residents are more preferred to play in the sea or lakes. Also, perhaps the MR is not suitable for water sports for its light water depth and narrow river width. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author can not convince us the quality of the water is the primary cause.

In addition, even if the water is not clean enough, the results of the cleaning up plans are open to doubt. We are not informed the degree of the water pollution. And it is very possible that these plans may take such（去掉such？） a long time to have effect. So the change of this situation may take quite a long time（和上一句重复）. Moreover, perhaps the quality of water improves greatly after the long time treatment, but it is still not clean enough for the water sports. Accordingly, this situation will not change at all for the unsuitable water condition（这句什么意思？）. Without proving more information about the effectiveness of the cleaning up plans, the author convinces me little.

Finally, the author hastily generalizes that the city council should increase the budget for the improvements of the publicly owned lands along the MR. Perhaps the publicly owned lands along the MR are quite good enough for the increasing recreational use. Lacking concrete information of the current public lands’ condition, the author’s recommendation of increasing budget is unwarranted.

In sum, as it stands the argument is not persuasive for several logical fallacies. To strengthen it, the author must provide more compelling evidence about the causal relationship of the water quality and little recreational use of the MR. To better evaluate this argument, the author must provide more information on the effectiveness of the water cleaning up plans.
比上一篇有进步，错误找的全，他因也想的不错，有些点表达不是很清晰，加油~

tomato217UID: 2126636

In this argument, the author claims that seldom use of Mason river (MR) for recreational activity is mainly due to the poor water quality of this river. And the author also claims that residents will take more activities in the MR for the improving plans, and the city council needs to increase the budget for the public lands' improvement along the Mason river. However, several flaws in this argument render it unconvincing. (什么是结论，什么是论据，首段都应该点清，而不是简单的同意转述题目)

To begin with, the author unfairly claims the seldom use of MR for recreational activity is caused by the water pollution of the river. However the author provides little information about this except the complaints about the quality of the water. It is entirely possible that Mason City is a seashore city and there are also several lakes there. So residents are more preferred to play in the sea or lakes. Also, perhaps the MR is not suitable for water sports for its light water depth and narrow river width. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author can not convince us the quality of the water is the primary cause.

In addition, even if the water is not clean enough, the results of the cleaning up plans are open to doubt. We are not informed the degree of the water pollution. And it is very possible that these plans may take such a long time to have（take） effect. So the change of this situation may take quite a long time. Moreover, perhaps the quality of water improves greatly（应该再具体化，跟后面not enough的情况做一个比较直观的对比） after the long time treatment, but it is still not clean enough for the water sports. Accordingly, this situation will not change at all for the unsuitable water condition（重复，最好跟上句合并且变换句式）. Without proving more information about the effectiveness of the cleaning up plans, the author convinces me little.

Finally, the author hastily generalizes that the city council should increase the budget for the improvements of the publicly owned lands along the MR. Perhaps the publicly owned lands along the MR are quite good（具体化） enough for the increasing recreational use. Lacking concrete information of the current public lands’ condition, the author’s recommendation of increasing budget is unwarranted.

In sum, as it stands the argument is not persuasive for several logical fallacies. To strengthen it, the author must provide more compelling evidence about the causal relationship of the water quality and little recreational use of the MR. To better evaluate this argument, the author must provide more information on the effectiveness of the water cleaning up plans.（末段几个建议都比较空）