Argument137 【米国有米】小组 第八次作业

Silence0706UID: 2289145

137The 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:
1.if this river is fit to be a recreational place terrotoritlly.
2.if the water can be cleaned to such degree that they would enjoy can i
3.destory the environment

In this argument, the author propose the city council to allocate the budget for improvements of the publicly owned land along the river in light of the impending raise of the recreational activity related to the river. the author based his proposal on the fact that the river is going to be cleaned up which have already been determined on by the agency responsible for the river, as a result, he correspondingly deduct that the passion of the people for the river recreation would inevitably grow up as well. At the first glance, it seems reasonable, however, a fully examination will reveal how flimsy his claim is.
To begin with, the author based his claim on a gratuitous assumption that this river posses the essential condition for the commercial exploitation, however the author fails to provide us the concrete evidence to convince us, thus if the river is fit to be adapted to a recreational place is left doubtful, to be developed into a water recreational place, the suitable depth, speed, and width of the water is required, the safety of the traveler must be guaranteed, however we see nothing evidence concerned about this issue, we can not rule out this possibility that the speed of this water may be too rapid to swim or boating, or the depth of this water is too shallow to boat.

Secondly, the other gratuitous assumption underlying the argument id that whether the river could be treated enough clean to such degree that it could be fitted to swim for the people is doubtful, unfortunately the author provides nothing about the prediction of the possible outcome for this river finishing the cleaning, as a result, we may assume that the river can not be treated to such standard that the people can swim inside without being hurted given the present technology in treating the polluted water. The health of the people is more vital than the predicted profits, in this sense; the conclusion based upon such assumption is very dangerous.

Another point i wish to emphasis is that what effect the adaptation of the river to the recreational area will bring to the river of itself, environment is much easy to damage than reinstitution, however the author has hardly be aware of the impact on the environment of this river, insofar as the water pollution, we can not deny the exploitation of this river will lead to some negative results, therefore before taking the action the government have to concern that is the benefits brought by the exploitation can be offseted by the aggravations of the pollution of this river.

All in all, as it stands, this argument is inconvincible, to support his idea, he has to make a detail investigation about the condition of this river, and consult with the expert to assure the pollution of this river would not be exacerbated.


[ 本帖最后由 Silence0706 于 2007-1-6 19:06 编辑 ]

cckantUID: 2247822

Argument137 【米国有米】小组 第八次作业
137The 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:
1.if this river is fit to be a recreational place terrotoritlly.
2.if the water can be cleaned to such degree that they would enjoy can i
3.destory the environment

In this argument, the author propose the city council to allocate (the划掉) budget for improvements of the publicly owned land along Mason River in light of the impending raise of the recreational activity related to the river. the author based his proposal on the fact that the river is going to be cleaned up which have already been determined on by the agency responsible for the river, as a result, he correspondingly deduct that the passion of the people for the river recreation would inevitably grow up as well. At the first glance, it seems reasonable, however, a fully examination will reveal how flimsy his claim is.

To begin with, the author based his claim on a gratuitous assumption that this river posses the essential condition for the recreational (文中没提到commercial，boating，fishing等可以是commercial组织得也可以是私人组织得) exploitation. However, the author fails to provide us the concrete evidence to convince us (to convince us 划掉也可，简洁些). Thus, (分开几句写清楚些) whether (if 只能作假设用，作从句主语要用whether) the river is fit to be adapted to a recreational place is left doubtful, to be developed into a water recreational place, the suitable depth, speed, and width of the water is required, the safety of the traveler must be guaranteed, however we see no evidence concerns) about this issue, we can not rule out the possibility that the speed of this water may be too rapid to swim or boating, or the depth of this water is too shallow to boat.

Secondly, the other gratuitous assumption underlying the argument is that whether the river could be treated enough clean to such degree that it could be fitted for swimming is doubtful. Unfortunately the author provides nothing about the prediction of the possible outcome for this river finishing the cleaning. As a result, we may assume that the river can not be treated to such standard that the people can swim inside without being hurted given the present technology in treating the polluted water. The health of the people is more important than the predicted profits, in this sense; the conclusion based upon such assumption is very dangerous.

Another point I wish to emphasis is that what effect the adaptation of the river to the recreational area will bring to the river of itself(不懂什么意思), environment is much easy to damage than reinstitution, however the author is hardly aware of the impact on the environment of this river. Insofar as the water pollution, we can not deny the exploitation of this river will lead to some negative results, therefore before taking the action the government should be concerned that is the benefits brought by the exploitation can be offseted by the aggravations of the pollution of this river.

All in all, as it stands, this argument is inconvincible. To support his idea, he has to make a detail investigation about the condition of this river, and consult with the expert to assure the pollution of this river would not be exacerbated.

Summary Comments:
1.        注意句子的拆分，不要都用逗号连在一起。需要连在一起的话要有必要的从句结构
2.        不要过多地使用被动语言，有些被动语态使用得不太恰当，也使文章显得单调
3.        注意切题，这argument 并不需要讨论到commercial的东西，注意审题
4.        最后有关环境的那点，个人觉得似乎有点离题，文章讨论的是：游人增加――》 所以应该加款维护设施， 鼓励不鼓励去那河玩的行为似乎并不在讨论的中心。当然，完善河岸设施会间接影响去那河玩的游人数量，但对于驳论本身来说，似乎并不需要考虑这方面。