ARGUMENT137 米国有米第八次作业 欢迎狠批

cckantUID: 2247822

TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.


"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby MasonRiver 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 MasonRiver. 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 MasonRiver."

WORDS: 439          TIME: 0:35:33          DATE: 2007-1-5

Outline:
1》水质不一定就是大家不起mason river(MR) 玩的原因
2》水质好了不等于大家就会去MR玩了
3》就算以后去MR玩的人多了，也不一定要增加预算

In the editorial, a recommendation emerges that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MasonRiver. The suggestion is drown from the following reasoning: (1) the residents in the region consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation, but they seldom use the nearby Mason River for ant kind of recreational activity; (2) there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river; (3) plans to clean up the Mason River have been announced. Though the reasoning seems to be plausible, it is not indefensible in three aspects.

Firstly, the complaints about the quality of the water in the river do not necessarily suggest that water quality is the reason of the seldom use of Mason river for recreational purpose. The complaints about water quality in the MasonRiver do not rule out that other reasons for the low use of the river for recreational purpose. At some interval of the river might be of low water quality, however, there can be other areas of the river are of adequate water quality of recreational use. In addition, people may complain the water quality for reasons rather than recreational, such as water drinking.

Secondly, there is insufficient evidence suggests that after the plans of cleaning up MasonRiver are carried out, the recreational use of the river should increase. Even though plans will work to improve the water quality in MasonRiver, people may still not go the MasonRiver for swimming, fishing and so on. There can be other rivers or seacoast nearby the region that they are of superior value for recreational purposes, such as safer environment, richer fish stock, or nicer landscape.

Finally, even if in the case that the recreational use of MasonRiver increases, it does not mean that the council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. There is not evidence provided suggest that the facilities in the publicly owned lands along the MasonRiver are only satisfying the current recreational use of the river. In the case that the facilities there are under used currently, then there is no need to increase budget to improve them.

In sum, due to logical defects mentioned above, I believe that the recreational usage of the MasonRiver after the cleaning up is still uncertain. Therefore, it is inadvisable to draw a conclusion about the budget raise, given the limited information on hands. More geographic information along with detail survey about the reluctance in using MasonRiver for recreation is desired for a sophisticated advice.

Silence0706UID: 2289145

In the editorial, a recommendation emerges that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The suggestion is drown from the following reasoning: (1) the residents in the region consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation, but they seldom use the nearby Mason River for [ant-> any] kind of recreational activity; (2) there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river; (3) plans to clean up the Mason River have been announced. Though the reasoning seems to be plausible, it is not indefensible in three aspects.

Firstly, the complaints about the quality of the water in the river do not necessarily suggest that water quality is the reason of the seldom use of Mason river for recreational purpose. The complaints about water quality in the Mason River do not rule out that other reasons for the low use of the river for recreational purpose. At some interval of the river might be of low water quality, [however, there can be other areas of the river are of adequate water quality of recreational use.] [ however, other areas of the river might be have water of adequate quality for recreational use.]In addition, people may complain the water quality for [other] reasons rather than recreational, such as water drinking.

Secondly, [there is 删掉，这样写很别扭] [an] insufficient evidence suggests that after the plans of cleaning up Mason River are carried out, the recreational use of the river should [be] increase[d]. Even though plans will work to improve the water quality in Mason River, people may still not go the Mason River for swimming, fishing and so on. There can be other rivers or seacoast nearby the region that they are of superior value for recreational purposes, such as safer environment, richer fish stock, or nicer landscape.

Finally, even if in the case that the recreational use of Mason River increases, it does not mean that the council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. There is not evidence provided [the] suggest[ing] that the facilities in the publicly owned lands along the Mason River are only satisfying the current recreational use of the river. [In the case 没这种用法，要么in case表万一 要么 in the case of 表在…..情况下] that the facilities there are under used currently, then there is no need to increase budget to improve them.[ in the case of this situation, the budget do not need to be increased to improve the facilities which are seldom used currently]

In sum, due to logical defects mentioned above, I believe that the recreational usage of the Mason River after the cleaning up is still uncertain. Therefore, it is inadvisable to draw a conclusion about the budget raise, given the limited information on hands. More geographic information along with detail survey about the reluctance in using Mason River for recreation is desired for a sophisticated advice.


[写得不错，有些语法错误，arg套路比较固定， 感觉只要问题抓住了，没什么可改的]

[ 本帖最后由 Silence0706 于 2007-1-7 13:54 编辑 ]