argument137 [米国有米］bailamo27第八次作业

bailamo27UID: 2191717

(2007-1-6)

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."

(当前，Mason市很少利用附近的Mason河来进行娱乐活动，尽管对该地区居民的几次调查一直指出他们把水上运动（游泳、垂钓和划船）作为他们最喜欢的娱乐形式。由于曾经存在对于这条河水质的投诉，居民一定是因为他们认为河水不够干净才不在这里活动。但这种情况就会改变了：我们地区负责河流管理的部门公布了澄清Mason河的计划。因此，河流的娱乐用途很可能将会增加，因而Mason市的市委有必要增加用于改善Mason河沿岸公共土地的预算。)

(time:12:50—13:53 , 570words)
In this argument, the arguer states residents of Mason City is seldom rank their recreational water sports in Mason river, because the river is complaint not clean enough. And he also asserts that after clean up plans has been carried out by agency responsible for rivers in this region, the recreational use of the river will increase, and accordingly, the budget for improvements of the lands along the Mason River should be increased by the city council. Closely scrutiny, this argument is full of flaws and the arguer fails to imply enough evidence to support his issue.

From the very beginning, the most significant flaw in this argument is the arguer doesn’t provide information about why the Mason River is not clean enough for water sports. There’re numerous reasons related to this question. Such as, there’re may factories around the river, of which the by-products or residues may contribute to the water pollution. Additionally, the residents in Mason City love water sports, like swimming, fishing and boating and so forth. It is quite possible to reasoning that people involved in these sports can pollute Mason River unconsciously. Sometimes, people’s actions indeed can do some harm or negative effects to nature. If this hypothesis is established right, even the plans to clean up the Mason River have been carried out, once people go back to swim, boating or fish in it, the river will actually be polluted again. So the most urgent task on hand is to clarify the direct reason that causes the pollution of the Mason River.

Consequently, another fault in this argument is the arguer claims residents in Mason City will take more water sports for entertainment because the agency responsible for rivers in Mason region has announced plans to clean up the river. This is absolutely not established. According to the arguer’s statement, plans of cleaning up the Mason River are just carried out, and there is no any evidence showing that this plan is effective. Whether the river is clean enough again for recreational use is called for questions. So whether residents in Mason will restart their actions in Mason River is still doubted.

Finally, the arguer asserts a ridiculous conclusion that the council of Mason City should increase the budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. Since there’s no any information about the pollution of the river; whether the plans of the agency responsible for rivers will be efficient and there’s no any sign predicts that people in the city will participate water sports in Mason River again, the arguer cannot assert this conclusion just by random thinking. Furthermore, even all these preconditions mentioned above are identified is right, it still lacks persuasive evidence for city council to increase the budget, because the arguer doesn’t provide any information that the publicly owned lands around the Mason River should be improved.

In sum, to think twice about this argument, the conclusion is precarious for several reasons mentioned above. In order to persuade the city council to increase the budget for improving the public lands along the Mason River, the arguer has to provide more evidence about the reason of the river’s pollution, assure that plans aimed to clear up the river is effective and residents in Mason City will increase their water sports in the river, and the last the lands of public along the river is indeed need to be improved.   

bluecathyUID: 2231215

In this argument, the arguer states residents of Mason City is seldom rank their recreational water sports in Mason river, because the river is complaint[complained with] not [being] clean enough. And he also asserts that after clean up plans has been carried out by agency responsible for rivers in this region, the recreational use of the river will increase, and accordingly, the budget for improvements of the lands along the Mason River should be increased by the city council. Closely scrutiny, this argument is full of flaws and the arguer fails to imply enough evidence to support his issue. 个人觉得复述的有点多了。

From the very beginning, the most significant flaw in this argument is the arguer doesn’t provide information about why the Mason River is not clean enough for water sports. There’re numerous reasons related to this question. Such as, there’re may factories around the river, of which the by-products or residues may contribute to the water pollution. Additionally, the residents in Mason City love water sports, like swimming, fishing and boating and so forth. It is quite possible to reasoning[reason] that people involved in these sports can pollute Mason River unconsciously. Sometimes, people’s actions indeed can do some harm or negative effects to nature. If this hypothesis is established right, even the plans to clean up the Mason River have been carried out, once people go back to swim, boating[boat] or fish in it, the river will actually be polluted again. So the most urgent task on hand is to clarify the direct reason that causes the pollution of the Mason River.作者这个驳论的角度很新，但个人觉得不是最重要的错误。

Consequently, another fault in this argument is[that] the arguer claims residents in Mason City will take more water sports for entertainment because the agency responsible for rivers in Mason region has announced plans to clean up the river. This is absolutely not established. According to the arguer’s statement, plans of cleaning up the Mason River are just carried out, and there is no any evidence showing that this plan is effective. Whether the river is clean enough again for recreational use is called for questions. So whether residents in Mason will restart their actions in Mason River is still doubted. 这段论述很流畅。

Finally, the arguer asserts a ridiculous conclusion that the council of Mason City should increase the budget to improve the publicly[public] owned lands along the Mason River. Since there’s no any information about the pollution of the river; whether the plans of the agency responsible for rivers will be efficient and there’s no any sign predicts that people in the city will participate water sports in Mason River again, the arguer cannot assert this conclusion just by random thinking. Furthermore, even all these preconditions mentioned above are identified is right, it still lacks persuasive evidence for city council to increase the budget, because the arguer doesn’t provide any information that the publicly owned lands around the Mason River should be improved.  

In sum, to think twice about this argument, the conclusion is precarious for several reasons mentioned above. In order to persuade the city council to increase the budget for improving the public lands along the Mason River, the arguer has to provide more evidence about the reason of the river’s pollution, assure that plans aimed to clear up the river is effective and residents in Mason City will increase their water sports in the river, and the last the lands of public along the river is indeed need to be improved.   
作者思路完整，语言也很流畅，我觉得你的argument写得很成熟了。