Argument137 【米国有米】第8次作业 bluecathy

bluecathyUID: 2231215

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."


提纲：
1.作者并未为河水干净了水上娱乐项目就会增多提供足够的证据。尽管在调查中本地居民一直把水上运动列为他们最喜欢的运动，调查取样的准确性，因为调查已是几年之前，当年参加调查的人可能并不是现在的居民，因此调查并不具有代表性。
2.即使调查具有代表性，但由于长时间没有人在河上进行过这种运动，我们并不知道人们否还愿意在Mason河上进行这种娱乐。Mason河可能也不适合。
3.政府宣布了计划，但不代表河水就一定会干净，污染程度、工作效率，都并不一定能达到标准，而且也许百姓可能会对河的水质有持续的印象，而不愿下水。而且目前河周围的设施可能也并不需要修建。


At first glace, the arguer's reasoning seems to be sound and convictive. According to his conclusion, more budgets for improvements to public lands along the river which may be used for water sports should be increased. But if we make a consideration of the evidence, doubt will be cast on this conclusion in three.

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence that water recreational activities will increase with the quality of the water becoming good. Although according to the surveys, residents in Mason City consistently rank water recreational activities as their favorite, the surveys couldn't suggest that the residents will go for water sports now. May the surveys be operated several years ago when the quality of Mason River didn't become bad; May the participators of these survey be not residents in Mason City nowadays. Therefore, due to the surveys, it is unclear whether residents lived in Mason City now like water sports or not.

Secondly, given that these surveys could represent residents' favorite of water sports, it doesn't mean that residents here would do water sports on Mason River. The residents here have not been taking recreational activities for a long time. Perhaps they have started to do water sports in other places where are of superior value of recreational purposes such as safer environment and nicer landscape, or perhaps they have got used to swimming in the swimming bath, fishing in the fishing club and boating in another river nearby.

Moreover, given that residents here are willing to do water sports in Mason River, it is also probable that water recreational activities will still not increase. Perhaps the underwater condition of Mason River is dangerous for some kind of water sports, such as swimming. Perhaps residents in Mason City have bad impression of the quality of Mason River so consistently that they couldn't take any sports in the very river. Therefore, it is highly possible that residents here will not intend to take water sports in Mason River which will be clean in the future.

Finally, even the arguer claims that the Mason City council will set about cleaning up Mason River; it doesn't mean that the quality of Mason River will be as clean as the standard of water sports requires. Maybe the pollution degree of Mason River is too high to clean up totally. Maybe work efficiency is so slow that we won't know when the quality of the water will be high. Thus, the recreational use of Mason River may not increase still.

Even if the recreational activities in Mason River increase, it doesn't suggest that the council should increase budget for improvements to the publicly own lands along the Mason River. The arguer fails to offer the evidence that the public establishments along the river are poor and residents here are not satisfied with existing public establishments now. Thus, it is doubtful for council to increase improvements budget.

To sum up, due to logical flaws mentioned above, the arguer should provide more evidence to testify his conclusion that improvements budget should be increased after Mason River cleaning up.

bailamo27UID: 2191717

At first glace, the arguer's reasoning seems to be sound and convictive. According to his conclusion, more budgets for improvements to public lands along the river which may be used for water sports should be increased. But if we make a consideration of the evidence, doubt will be cast on this conclusion in three.(good!)

To begin with, the arguer fails to provide sufficient evidence that water recreational activities will increase with the quality of the water becoming good(虽用了个长句,但后面有些累赘,改成:water ...will increase with the improvement of water quality 要好些, 作者认为呢?). Although according to the surveys, residents in Mason City consistently rank water recreational activities as their favorite, the surveys couldn't(直接用cannot不好些嘛?) suggest that the residents will go for water sports now. May the surveys be operated several years ago when the quality of Mason River didn't become bad; May the participators of these survey be not residents in Mason City nowadays(这个假设本身也站不住脚啊,不是当地的就不能提供有说服力的调查资料吗?). Therefore, due to the surveys, it is unclear whether residents lived in Mason City now like water sports or not.

Secondly, given that these surveys could represent residents' favorite of(in) water sports, it doesn't mean that residents here would do water sports on Mason River(like before.根据你的意思是说以前居民在这河上做水上运动,但现在不一定了,那么加上这句才有此意思的体现.). The residents here have not been taking recreational activities for a long time. Perhaps they have started to do water sports in other places where are of superior value of recreational purposes such as safer environment and nicer landscape, or perhaps they have got used to swimming in the swimming bath, fishing in the fishing club and boating in another river nearby.

Moreover, given that residents here are willing to do water sports in Mason River, it is also probable that water recreational activities will still not increase. Perhaps the underwater condition of Mason River is dangerous for some kind of water sports, such as swimming. Perhaps residents in Mason City have bad impression of the quality of Mason River so consistently that they couldn't take any sports in the very river(?什么意思啊?). Therefore, it is highly possible that residents here will not intend to take water sports in Mason River which will be clean in the future.(这段论点和论据都不错,特别是论据比较又说服力,很好!)

Finally, even the arguer claims that the Mason City council will set about cleaning up Mason River; it doesn't mean that the quality of Mason River will be as clean as the standard(s) of water sports requires. Maybe the pollution degree of Mason River is too high to clean up totally. Maybe work efficiency is so slow that we won't know when the quality of the water will be high(改成: will be good enough,要好些, 单纯用high一词,太中文化). Thus, the recreational use of Mason River may not increase still.

Even if the recreational activities in Mason River increase(increased), it doesn't suggest that the council should increase budget for improvements to the publicly own lands along the Mason River. The arguer fails to offer the evidence that the public establishments along the river are poor and residents here are not satisfied with existing public establishments now. Thus, it is doubtful for council to increase improvements budget.(呵呵,此段简洁但观点直接明确,好!)

To sum up, due to logical flaws mentioned above, the arguer should provide more evidence to testify his conclusion that improvements budget should be increased after Mason River cleaning up.(结尾太简单了, 就一句话? 要么后面再加上...否则,这篇arg就不成立或不可信一类的总结句?)

总结:本文总的说来还行,但第2-3段的论述还是又些问题,观点不太突出,说服力不强. 结尾太草率,考虑修改一下. 全文感觉没有太多漂亮的词汇和句子,还需要加油啊! 共勉哦!