Argument147 【米国有米】小组 第八次作业 写的还算顺利

ernest81888UID: 2247639

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."

Syllabus:
Flaw1: survey
Flaw2: even if the survey is representative, the arguer failed to claim that the quality of water is the only reason for MC residents’ refuting to water recreational activity.
Flaw3: even if the main reason is the pollution of MR, and the agency has announced plans to clean up MR, it is still unconvincing that recreational use of the river is likely to increase.

In this argument the arguer recommends it is necessary for the Mason City (MC) council to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River (MR). To support his recommendation the arguer cites a survey ostensibly showing that region’s residents are always in favor of water sports. Moreover, the arguer mentions complains about the quality of wafer in the MR. Additionally, he also assume that there is agency responsible for rivers to take the pollution into active in plan. At a first glace, the argument appeals to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that it suffering from several logical flaws.

Firstly, a threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the survey. The arguer provides no evidence that the number of respondents is statistically significant or that the respondents were representative of MC residents in general. For example, perhaps the responses to the survey are very small, or perhaps all the responses are tourists who currently live in that region. It is also possible that only sport-liking people take part in the survey. Lacking information about the randomness and size of the survey sample, the arguer can not make a convincing argument based on that survey.

Secondly, even if the survey’s respondents are representative of the entire population of MC resident, the arguer also commit a fallacy of correlation to causation in assuming that water pollution is the only reason result in lowered recreation activity. However this is none necessarily the case. To establish a general causal relationship between the water quality and the lowered MR sports activity, other facts that could result in current lowered recreation activity nearby MR should be reconsidered or even be eliminated. For example, although there have been complains about the water pollution, possibility also exits that numerous people have complained about the poor public security there. Or perhaps it is because that the cooling weather which made the river frozen thus no one could go for swimming or fishing in the river. All I mentioned above could lead to the result that the current MC resident’s lowered sports activity. If so, then the recommendation of arguer based on this might amount to poor advice and unwarranted.

Finally, even if water pollution is the only reason for MR that make MC resident refuse to take recreation activity, and there is agency taking responsibility to optimize it in plan. It still can not make me convinced that the MC council should increase the budget for improvement to public owned land along MR. Perhaps the agency will implement the plan after 2 years or maybe it will take 5 years for the agency to clean up the pollution in the river. Also perhaps, the pollution of MR is too serious that the agency in fact has not the ability to remedy it. Without make such possibility cleared, the auger’s recommendation is still highly suspect.

In sum, the argument is not well supported. To bloster the argument, the arguer must provide us more information about the survey. Besides, to better access the strength of his recommendation, a complete investigation must be done to support the quality of water is the only reason for lowered MC recreation activity. It is also useful for the MC to have a better evaluation about the agency who wants to take the responsibility in implementing the pollution issue of MR.




[ 本帖最后由 ernest81888 于 2007-1-3 13:15 编辑 ]

森林116UID: 2272614

In this argument the arguer recommends it is necessary for the Mason City (MC) council to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River (MR). To support his recommendation the arguer cites a survey ostensibly (好词) showing that region’s residents are always in favor of water sports. Moreover, the arguer mentions complains about the quality of wafer in the MR. Additionally, he also assume that there is agency responsible for rivers to take the pollution into active in plan. At a first glace, the argument appeals to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that it suffering from several logical flaws. (对于模版我没什么好说的,但我觉得你是9是每次开头都未免太详细了??你看开头段比第一段还多啊)

Firstly, a threshold (又一个好词~~) problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the survey. The arguer provides no evidence that the number of respondents is statistically significant or that the respondents were representative of MC residents in general. For example, perhaps the responses to the survey are very small, or perhaps all the responses are tourists who currently live in that region. It is also possible that only sport-liking people take part in the survey. Lacking information about the randomness and size of the survey sample, the arguer can not make a convincing argument based on that survey.(在这个大结论前,文里面要8要说点什么??感觉这段只指出了失误,没有很好联系起来,在perhaps 和It is also possible 这些后面应该加个小小的总结比如说他们导致了.....然后再进行该段总结)

Secondly, even if the survey’s respondents are representative of the entire population of MC resident, the arguer also commit a fallacy of correlation to causation in assuming that water pollution is the only reason result in lowered recreation activity.(额,,原文哪里表示了这个意思啊~~偶貌似没理解出来~~) However this is none necessarily the case. To establish a general causal relationship between the water quality and the lowered MR sports activity, other facts that could result in current lowered recreation activity nearby MR should be reconsidered or even be eliminated. For example, although there have been complains about the water pollution, possibility also exits that numerous people have complained about the poor public security there. (这个..可以说是example么??) Or perhaps it is because that the cooling weather which made the river frozen thus no one could go for swimming or fishing in the river. All I mentioned above could lead to the result that the current MC resident’s lowered sports activity. If so, then the recommendation of arguer based on this might amount to poor advice and unwarranted.

Finally, even if water pollution is the only reason for MR that make MC resident refuse to take recreation activity, and there is agency taking responsibility to optimize it in plan. It still can not make me convinced that the MC council should increase the budget for improvement to public owned land along MR. Perhaps the agency will implement the plan after 2 years or maybe it will take 5 years (or more) for the agency to clean up the pollution in the river. Also perhaps, the pollution of MR is too serious that the agency in fact has not the ability to remedy it. Without make such possibility cleared, the auger’s recommendation is still highly suspect.

In sum, the argument is not well supported. To bloster (???) the argument, the arguer must provide us more information about the survey. Besides, to better access the strength of his recommendation, a complete investigation must be done to support the quality of water is the only reason for lowered MC recreation activity. It is also useful for the MC to have a better evaluation about the agency who wants to take the responsibility in implementing the pollution issue of MR.

感觉你换了套模板,呵呵~~段与段之间照应8错~~但是句子之间联系8强.结尾很好.攻击的第二点我表示疑问,,,希望能探讨下~~~
攻击调查防在最后说...感觉有点怪怪的~~~
是限时写的吗??这么多字啊~~~