Argument137 graduate06--Hamming组 自己的第9篇Argument

graduate06UID: 2223299

137.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."

当前，Mason市很少利用附近的Mason河来进行娱乐活动，尽管对该地区居的几次调查一直指出他们把水上运动（游泳、垂钓和划船）作为他们最喜欢的娱乐形式。由于曾经存在对于这条河水质的投诉，居一定是因为他们认为河水不够干净才不在这里活动。但这种情况就会改变了：我们地区负责河流管理的部门公布了澄清Mason河的计划。因此，河流的娱乐用途很可能将会增加，因而Mason市的市委有必要增加用于改Mason河沿岸公共土地的预算。

The argument’s conclusion the council of Mason City will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River seems at first glance to be a apparent conclusion. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence and the argument’s reasoning reveals that the author provides no firm support to the conclusion. First, the credibility of the surveys is open to doubt. Besides, the author assumes that the residents of Mason avoided Mason River is due to complaining quality of water. The author also concludes that increasing the budget on the basis of the plan of cleaning the river. I will discuss each of the facets in turn.

The threshold problem of the argument is the author has not provided complete information of with the surveys. The author fails to provide the wide of the survey. Perhaps, the survey was conducted in some universities or blocks, which have swimming gym, so these people are more interested in water sports than others. Even if the field is large enough to statistically significant, or perhaps the survey was conducted in the form of paper which needs people to write and to return them back. Most of the people who do not like water sports would not like to respond the survey, and the people who crazy water sports most likely to respond the survey. If it is the case, any reasoning on the basis of it is unpersuasive.

Even if the survey is reliable, the author also fails to establish the causal relationship between complaining quality of the water and avoiding the river. Although someone complained the quality of the river, the author fails to provide the number of the complaining people and the contain of the complaintion. Perhaps, only one or two people complained the problem that there are some rubbish in certain field of the river. The problems like this wouldn’t likely to affect residents’ playing in the water. Or perhaps, the river is too narrow to play in it and every year Mason River always dry out for several months. So people cannot play or fish in the river during that time.

Even assuming that the cause-and-effect is real, the author concludes that the government needs to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River on the basis of planing to clean up the river. Without the details of the plan, it is entirely possible that this is only a preliminaryplan or a plan that devise toclean the river in ten years period. So it is hard to say the recreational use of the river will increase, let alone to increase the spending on publicly owned lands. Even if the recreational use of the river indeed increase, it is not sure that the government need to increase budget for publicly owned lands. If people just fish, boat in the river, therefore the public lands is nearly used. And the author fails to provide that the condition of the lands. If it is in perfect condition, then the budget is no necessary.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide the details of the surveys. To better evaluate the argument we need to know why the local people avoid the river. We also need to know more complete information of the plan and the condition of the publicly owned land.

这篇重点放在了分析上。

[ 本帖最后由 graduate06 于 2006-12-27 01:08 编辑 ]

graduate06UID: 2223299

自改了一遍

The argument’s conclusion the council of Mason City will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River seems at first glance to be a apparent conclusion. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence and the argument’s reasoning reveals that the author provides no firm support to the conclusion. First, the credibility of the surveys is open to doubt. Besides, the author assumes that the residents of Mason avoided Mason River is due to complaining quality of water. The author also concludes that increasing the budget on the basis of the plan of cleaning the river. I will discuss each of the facets in turn.

The threshold problem of the argument is the author has not provided complete information of with the surveys. The author fails to provide the scope of the survey. Perhaps, the survey was conducted in some universities or blocks, which have swimming gym, so these people are more interested in water sports than others. Even if the scope is large enough to statistically significant, or perhaps the survey was conducted in the form of questionnaire which needs people to write and to return them back. Most of the people who do not like water sports would not likely to respond the survey, and the people who are crazy about water sports most likely to respond to the survey. If it is the case, any reasoning on the basis of it is unpersuasive.

Even if the survey is reliable, the author also fails to establish the causal relationship between complaining quality of the water and avoiding the river. Although someone complained the quality of the river, the author fails to provide the number of the complaining people and the content of the complaint. Perhaps, only one or two residents complained the problem that there is some rubbish in certain stretch of the river. The problems like this would not likely to affect amusement of residents in the water. Or perhaps, the river is too narrow to play in it and every year Mason River always dry out for several months. So people cannot play or fish in the river during that time.

Even assuming that the cause-and-effect exists, the author assumes that the Mason City council needs to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River on the basis of a plan of cleaning Mason River. Without the details of the plan, it is entirely possible that this is only a preliminary plan or a plan that depends on donation to clean the river. So it is hard to saywhen the recreational use of the river will increase, let alone to increase the spending on publicly owned lands. Even if the recreational use of the river indeed increases, it is not necessary that the government needs to increase budget for publicly owned lands. If inhabitants just fish, boat in the river, therefore the public lands rarely used in this case. And the author fails to provide that the condition of the lands. If it is in perfect condition, then the council is not necessary to fund it.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide the details of the surveys. To better evaluate the argument we need to know why the local people avoid the river. We also need to know more complete information of the plan and the condition of the publicly owned land. 574
此篇重点在分析上面。

sisong2003UID: 2154005

The argument’s conclusion the council of Mason City will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River seems at first glance to be anapparent conclusion. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence and the argument’s reasoning reveals that the author provides no firm support to the conclusion. First, the credibility of the surveys is open to doubt. Besides, the author assumes that the residents of Mason avoided Mason River is due to complaining quality of water. The author also concludes that increasing the budget on the basis of the plan of cleaning the river. I will discuss each of the facets in turn.

The threshold problem of the argument is the author has not provided complete information of with the surveys. The author fails to provide the scope of the survey. Perhaps, the survey was conducted in some universities or blocks, which have swimming gym, so these people are more interested in water sports than others. Even if the scopeis large enough to statistically significant, or perhaps the survey was conducted in the form of questionnaire which needs people to write and to return them back. Most of the people who do not like water sports would not likely to respond the survey, and the people who are crazy about water sports aremore likely to respondto the survey. If it is the case, any reasoning on the basis of it is unpersuasive.

Even if the survey is reliable, the author also fails to establish the causal relationship between complaining quality of the water and avoiding the river. Although someone complained the quality of the river, the author fails to provide the number of the complaining people and the content of the complaint. Perhaps, only one or two residents complained the problem that there is some rubbish in certain stretch of the river. The problems like this would not likely to affect amusement of residents in the water. Or perhaps, the river is too narrow to play in it and every year Mason River always dry out for several months. So people cannot play or fish in the river during that time.

Even assuming that the cause-and-effect exists, the author assumes that the Mason City council needs to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River on the basis of a plan of cleaning Mason River. Without the details of the plan, it is entirely possible that this is only a preliminaryplan or a plan that depends on donation to clean the river. So it is hard to say when the recreational use of the river will increase, let alone to increase the spending on publicly owned lands. Even if the recreational use of the river indeed increases, it is not necessary that the government needs to increase budget for publicly owned lands. If inhabitants just fish, boat in the river, therefore the public lands rarely used in this case. And the author fails to provide －the condition of the lands. If it is in perfect condition, then the council is not necessary to fund it.

In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide the details of the surveys. To better evaluate the argument we need to know why the local people avoid the river. We also need to know more complete information of the plan and the condition of the publicly owned land.
攻击相当全面

[ 本帖最后由 sisong2003 于 2006-12-29 23:38 编辑 ]