argument137 <米国有米小组aefiter第八次作业> 欢迎指点

aefiterUID: 2134740

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."


This argument concludes with the suggestionfor the increase of budget for improvement of publicly owned lands along the Mason River.The preceding reasoning, however, fails to support this conclusion. Moreover,this conclusion steps forward unfoundedly. I will examine the fallacies in theargument in details.

At the beginning, the editor's inferencethat residents disgust the quality of water in adjacent rivers is not supportedby the preceding evidence. Perhaps the surveys related to residents' favoritesports may be outdated. Although residents did favor these sports in the past,recent job pressure, the climate change may change residents' preference onwater sports. Besides, the complaints cited in this argument may not be used asan evidence for the deterioration of water quality. If that complaint refers tothe water quality as a threat to wild lives living around this rivers, and thisdeterioration of water quality does not prevent water activities, the evidencewill be feckless in supporting the inference of residents' refuse to watersports.

Furthermore, even residents are reallyconcerned with water quality while planning to sports, the assertion of animmediate change is still questionable. Perhaps the agency has scheduled aclean up of Mason River, the editor doesnot indicate the specific date for this cleaning. If this cleaning will not becarried out in recent several years, and before the carry out, some tighteningsituation for budget occurred, this plan may be put off. Then, the assertionwill become a lofty promise to residents in this region.

Granted all the above mentioned questioninghave been solved, we still cannot arrive at the extended conclusion that MasonCity council will need to spare budget for the publicly owned lands along theriver. In this line of reasoning, the editor assumes the improvement isnecessary and urgent, which is not well supported. Suppose, for example, thispublic lands have been improved not very long before, and recently no heavy useof these lands have occurred because of the residents' concern about waterquality, the council does not need to channel special budget for theimprovement.

In the final analysis, the editor mayprovide supplemental information to bolster this argument. For instance, adefinite investigation about residents idea about their infrequent water sportwill be beneficial for the identification of this problem. Moreover, we mayneed to ensure the specific date for the project to improve water quality in Mason River.Finally, we still need to know whether the publicly own lands along this riverhas been improved recently.

blackswitchUID: 2110679

"  "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."

This argument concludes with the suggestion for the increase of budget for improvement of publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The preceding reasoning, however, fails to support this conclusion. Moreover, this conclusion steps forward unfoundedly. I will examine the fallacies in the argument in details.
At the beginning, the editor's inference that residents disgust the quality of water in adjacent rivers is not supported by the preceding evidence. Perhaps the surveys related to residents' favorites ports may be outdated. Although residents did favor these sports in the past, recent job pressure, the climate change may change residents' preference on water sports. Besides, the complaints cited in this argument may not be used as an evidence for the deterioration of water quality. If that complaint refers to the water quality as a threat to wild lives living around this rivers, and this deterioration of water quality does not prevent water activities, the evidence will be feckless in supporting the inference of residents' refuse to water sports.[感觉这里的Complaint的理由有点牵强，这个河既然可以用来娱乐 ，难道还有野生动物]
Furthermore, even residents are really concerned with water quality while planning to sports, the assertion of an immediate change is still questionable. Perhaps the agency has scheduled a clean up of Mason River, the editor does not indicate the specific date for this cleaning. If this cleaning will not be carried out in recent several years, and before the carry out, some tightening situation for budget occurred, this plan may be put off. Then, the assertion will become a lofty promise to residents in this region.
Granted all the above mentioned questioning have been solved, we still cannot arrive at the extended conclusion that MasonCity council will need to spare budget for the publicly owned lands along the river. In this line of reasoning, the editor assumes the improvement is necessary and urgent, which is not well supported. Suppose, for example, this public lands have been improved not very long before, and recently no heavy use of these lands have occurred because of the residents' concern about water quality, the council does not need to channel special budget for the improvement.
In the final analysis, the editor may provide supplemental information to bolster this argument. For instance, a definite investigation about residents idea about their infrequent water sport will be beneficial for the identification of this problem. Moreover, we may need to ensure the specific date for the project to improve water quality in Mason River. Finally, we still need to know whether the publicly own lands along this river has been improved recently.
[文章写的很好，分析上层层递进，在语言上很流畅，而且没有北美范文上的那些固定句式，非常好。以我的水平确实是改不出来，也强烈建议aefiter给我们这些菜鸟讲讲经验]

[ 本帖最后由 blackswitch 于 2007-1-7 23:30 编辑 ]