Argument137 【米国有米】小组 第八次作业

laner023UID: 2223653

提纲
1质疑调查
2即使调查有效，人们很少在M河上进行水上运动也不一定是因为M河水质问题
3即使是河水的问题，plans也不能保证河水变干净，即使水干净了也不一定需要更多的预算。

正文
In this argument, the author concludes that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the public owned lands along the Manson River. To support this conclusion, the author cites various evidences. However, this argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the author's conclusion relies on two unsubstantiated assumptions about the surveys that the author cites. The first is that residents that contributing to these survey are representative of all residents in Mason City. It is entirely possible, for instance, that a disproportionate number of residents who prefer water sports contributed to the surveys, rendering the statistics biased and therefore unreliable. The second unsubstantiated assumption is that the number of residents contributing to these surveys is large enough to be statistically significant. Unless the author can substantiate the two assumptions, he cannot justifiably rely on these surveys to draw any general inference about residents' favorite recreation.

Secondly, even one accepts that the surveys are statistically reliable, the author's further assumption that the quality of the water is responsible for resident's avoiding the river is unwarranted. The argument contains no details of the complaints about the quality of the water. Lacking such information, it is equally possible that the cases of complaints are so rare that it cannot reflect the opinions of all the residents. Moreover, the author also fails to consider some other matters that could have contributed to phenomenon that Mason River is seldom used for recreational activity. Perhaps the river is too narrow to fit for any kind of recreation. It is also possible that the environment near the river is so noisy that people cannot endure it. On the contrary, it is equally possible that the residents who lived along Mason River think that the people who play water sports are too noisy, and then drive them away. In all likelihood, there might be another river in Mason City which is more suitable for water sports. Thus, comprehensive analysis is necessary to identify the actual cause of the little recreational use of Mason River.

Thirdly, given that the quality of the river is the reason, the argument assumes too hastily that the plans will necessarily result in the increase of budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. First, the author assumes that Mason River's water quality become greatly improved and then good enough for water sports as a result of the plans announced by the agency. In all likelihood, the river is serious polluted and any measure cannot make it fit for water sports. It is also perhaps that the plans cannot be implemented due to the lack of finance. If so, the author cannot safely assume that the recreational use of the river would increase. Moreover, even if the river is cleared up by the agency, the author provide no firm evidence that extra budget is necessary to solve the problem. Perhaps that the publicly owned land along the river is good enough and it requires no extra improvement. (麻烦帮我改改这句，实在写得太幼稚了，但又不知道怎么写好) If this is the case, the author cannot persuade the council to increase its budget for publicly owned land along the river.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, the author must provide evidence that the surveys are statistically reliable and the quality of water is the reason for little recreational use of the river. To better assess the conclusion, the author should also prove that the plans would suffice to clear up the river and the land along the river need improvements.

[ 本帖最后由 laner023 于 2007-1-6 17:29 编辑 ]

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

题目是137吧

Argument137 【米国有米】小组 第八次作业

"Atpresent, Mason City residents seldom use thenearby Mason River for any kind of recreationalactivity, even though surveysof the region's residents consistently rank watersports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Sincethere have been complaints about thequality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river becausethey think that it is not clean enough.But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in ourregion has announced plansto 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 forimprovements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."
偶滴分析：
·前提1，河水干净了河上娱乐会上升。尽管论者本地居民一直把水上运动列为他们最喜欢的运动，但由于长时间很少有人使用它，我们并不知道居民是否愿意或者是否有时间在M河上进行这种娱乐可能工作很忙。M河的地段地势有可能不适合水上运动。
·前提2，河水会干净。机构宣布了计划，不一定河水就能干净，污染程度的鉴定，还有工作效率，都不一定能达到标准。
·结论，公共场所需要改进吗？不一定吧。
·结论：这篇社论没有了解当地情况，也不知道前景如何，政府的决策还需考虑。

1水质有问题的真正原因没有标明，污染程度也没有说，使得计划是否有效值得怀疑。
2居民不活动的真正原因没有指出可能工作忙没有时间。投诉不说明大众意见。
3水质就算改善，也不能标明居民就愿意在这里进行活动，M河的地段地势有可能不适合水上运动
4沿岸公用土地是否需要改善没有证明。
=================================================

laner023UID: 2223653

我觉得这个提纲挑的错误没有问题，但是段与段之间没有层层递进的逻辑联系

1水质有问题的真正原因没有标明，污染程度也没有说，使得计划是否有效值得怀疑。
(这段放在这里，不太容易和下文衔接)
2居民不活动的真正原因没有指出可能工作忙没有时间。投诉不说明大众意见。
3水质就算改善，也不能标明居民就愿意在这里进行活动，M河的地段地势有可能不适合水上运动
（我觉得二，三段可以合在一起说。因为居民不活动不一定是因为水质不好，所以水质就算改善居民有可能仍不活动）
4沿岸公用土地是否需要改善没有证明。
（个人觉得这一段不太好展开，反例不好举，要写好这一段比较困难。所以我写得时候就把这个错误和“计划”那个合成一段了）

[ 本帖最后由 laner023 于 2007-1-6 14:10 编辑 ]

laner023UID: 2223653

天哪，你们每天几点睡啊？？

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

提纲
1调查
2人们很少在M河上进行水上运动不一定是因为M河水质问题
3即使是河水的问题，plans也不能保证河水变干净，即使水干净了也不一定需要更多的预算。
     
正文写了这么多啊！！！！！

In this argument, the author concludes thatthe Mason City council will need to increase itsbudget for improvements to the public owned lands along the Manson River.To support this conclusion, the author cites various evidences. However, thisargument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render itunconvincing as it stands.
              
First of all, the author's conclusion relies on two unsubstantiated assumptionsabout the surveys that the author cites. The first isthat residents that contributing to these survey are representative of allresidents in Mason City.It is entirely possible, for instance, thata disproportionate number of residents who prefer water sports contributed tothe surveys, rendering the statistics biased and therefore unreliable. Thesecond unsubstantiated assumption is that the number ofresidents contributing to these surveys is large enough to be statisticallysignificant. Unless the author can substantiate the two assumptions, hecannot justifiably rely on these surveys to draw any general inference aboutresidents' favorite recreation.[可能性不要列那么多好不好]
               
Secondly, even one accepts that the surveys are statistically reliable, theauthor's further assumption that the quality of the water is responsible forresident's avoiding the river is unwarranted. The argument contains no detailsof the complaints about the quality of the water. Lacking such information, it is equally possible that the cases ofcomplaints are so rare that it cannot reflect the opinions of all theresidents. Moreover, the author also fails to consider some other matters thatcould have contributed to phenomenon that Mason Riveris seldom used for recreational activity. Perhaps the river is too narrow tofit for any kind of recreation. It is also possiblethat the environment near the river is so noisy that people cannot endure it.On the contrary, it is equally possible thatthe residents who lived along Mason River think that thepeople who play water sports are too noisy, and then drive them away. In alllikelihood, there might be another river in Mason City which is more suitable for watersports. Thus, comprehensive analysis is necessary to identify the actual causeof the little recreational use of Mason River.  [你列了好多可能性，可能性不要列那么多好不好，重在论证；还有不要总用it is …… possible]
      
Thirdly, given that the quality of the river is the reason, the argumentassumes too hastily that the plans will necessarily result in the increase ofbudget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.First, the author assumes that Mason River's water qualitybecome greatly improved and then good enough for water sports [作者有这样的假设吗？] as a result of the plans announcedby the agency. In all likelihood, the river is serious polluted and any measurecannot make it fit for water sports. It is also perhapsthat the plans cannot be implemented due to the lack of finance. [注意题目后面不是就要市政府出钱吗？] If so, the author cannot safelyassume that the recreational use of the river would increase. Moreover, even ifthe river is cleared up by the agency, the author provide no firm evidence thatextra budget is necessary to solve the problem. Perhapsthat the publicly owned land along the river is good enough and it requires noextra improvement.[不用改直接删掉它，你不觉得这个可能性很小吗？极端例子不好，记住ETS要求compelling reasons and persuasive examples] (麻烦帮我改改这句，实在写得太幼稚了，但又不知道怎么写好) If this is the case, the author cannot persuade the council toincrease its budget for publicly owned land along the river.   

[其实本段论述还可以，不过请不要用那么多Perhaps------我实在忍不住了---怎么每次都看到大量的Perhaps和it is …… possible]   
     
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as itstands. To bolster the conclusion, the author must provide evidence that thesurveys are statistically reliable and the quality of water is the reason for little [为什么用这个词捏？] recreational use of the river. Tobetter assess the conclusion, the author should also prove that the plans wouldsuffice to clear up the river and the land along the river need improvements.
   

因为偶没写这篇，所以偶先粗略的看了下，还请达人来改后继续指点。

PS---偶平常11：30睡，有时候特殊

[ 本帖最后由 ntmlgsz 于 2007-1-6 16:22 编辑 ]

laner023UID: 2223653

谢谢组长，呵呵。

喜欢多举反例是因为看了几个大牛的6分经验，说不管是什么反例，只要想得到，不要自相矛盾就通通写上去。

用perhaps和possible实在是因为不知道该用其他什么词了。

“沿岸公用土地是否需要改善没有证明”这个怎么论述？

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

不管是什么反例？

汗~~~偶觉得你的那个例子根本不能说明问题~~也不能起论据的作用，看起来像废话啊

哪几个大牛的6分经验？

laner023UID: 2223653

First, the author assumes that Mason River's water qualitybecome greatly improved and then good enough for water sports [作者有这样的假设吗？]

我发现组长和我在这点上有分歧，组长似乎认为文章中没有明确说出来的就不算作者的假设，而我认为作者举那么多事例就是为了暗示他的假设，我们恰恰要把那些隐含假设找出来批驳。不知道我们谁是对的。

laner023UID: 2223653

忘记了，在精华帖里看到的。

ntmlgszUID: 2235666

你说的是这个句子吧？First, the author assumes that Mason River's water qualitybecome greatly improved and then good enough for water sports ~~~呵呵~~~

“沿岸公用土地是否需要改善没有证明”这个怎么论述？

逻辑是这个样子的：河水会干净--->河上娱乐会上升--->游客变多[这个是偶自己推的，不知道好不好]--->政府需要花钱改善沿岸公用土地/公路

沿岸公用土地/公路的状况的测定应该提出，因为如果土地道路可以充分满足游客量的需要的话再花钱整就很浪费，还有其他可能性都可以指出。[自己想啊]

用perhaps和possible实在是因为不知道该用其他什么词了。

看别人的文章啊~~~其实可以换好多方式表达可能性~~偶孤陋寡闻知道的很少~~现在正在补