argument137 请狂拍，必回拍

staroceanUID: 2271193

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."


In this argument , the author attempt to convince us that the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River should be increased as more recreational use of the river. This recommendation is based on the observation that the agency has announced plans to clean the river up   alone the fact that people were in favor of rank water sports. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims.

First of all, the recommendation is based on two unsubstantiated assumptions. The first one is that the agency’s plan will work effective and really clean the river up. It is true that this plan may make some change, however, this should not overshadow the possibility that the river was polluted so seriously that the project will not work at all. Or it is possible that the river may not be cleaned exactly as the citizens expect. Moreover, without information about the maintain work, the river may soon be polluted again. Under each scenario, citizens will still not satisfied with the water and this fact may undermine the author’s further conclusion.

The second unsubstantiated assumption is that people are willing to use the river for recreational activity as long as the water is clean. For one thing, the author fails to consider some other factors may instead responsible for the fact that residents are avoiding the river, which may include the danger of water sports in the river, the inconvenience of traffic to the river, the chaos and crowd as result of no rules there. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the people to focus on these problems than to clean the water. For another thing, given that a survey indicates that people are enjoining water sports and no one do these in the river at present, it is very likely that the residents already have other location for these kind of recreation. And no evidence is provided that they will prefer the river over their present location just because the river water is clean.

Even if the author can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, the recommendation rests in the further conclusion that the city should increase the budged for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. The author provides little information concerning the present improvements and budged. Perhaps the improvements are sufficient enough. And maybe the recreational use will not need to be improved at all. It is also possible that the city council may charge people for the use, and put these money for improvements. In addition, even if the raise is needed, the council should also consider the following questions. How much  money should be put into this use? Do the council have so much money? And should they use this money on this issue rather than to solve other pressing problems? With the same money they may build a nursing home for the senior, they may contribute to orphanage for the homeless child, they may add it to research or medical fund, or they may just use it to prevent environmental pollution. Under either scenario, the budget appears undeserving of the recommended raise based on this particular criterion.

In conclusion, the author’s conclusion is not convincing as it stands. To bolster this recommendation, the author has to provide more evidence that the clean water project will work effective, and people are willing to do recreation in the river as long as it is clean. Still before I accept the final conclusion, the author must present more facts concerning the budget for improvements needs and deserve to be increased.  

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-15 16:20 编辑 ]

eric_panUID: 2270415

In this argument , the author attempt to convince us that the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River should be increased as more recreational use of the river. This recommendation is based on the observation that the agency has announced plans to clean the river up   alone the fact that people were in favor of rank water sports. However, the evidence presented throughout the argument is vague and hence does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims.

First of all, the recommendation is based on two unsubstantiated assumptions. The firs one is that the agency’s plan will work effective and really clean the river up. It is true that this plan may make some change, however, this should(should不合适吧，你再感觉一下) not overshadow the possibility that the river was polluted so seriously that the project will not work at all. Or it is possible that the river may not be cleaned exactly 应该是达到要求吧，感觉表达有点问题as the citizens expect. Moreover, without information about the maintain work, the river may soon be polluted again. Under each scenario, citizens will still not satisfied with the water and this fact may undermine the author’s further conclusion.

The second unsubstantiated assumption is that people are willing to use the river for recreational activity as long as the water is clean. For one thing, the author fails to consider some other factors may instead这个词不准确 responsible for the fact that residents are avoiding the river, which may include the danger of water sports in the river, the inconvenience of traffic to the river, the chaos and crowd as result of no rules there. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the people to focus on these problems than to clean the water. For another thing, given that a survey indicates that people are enjoining water sports and no one do these in the river at present, it is very likely that the residents already have other location for these kinds of recreation. And no evidence is provided that they will prefer the river over their present location just because the river water is clean.

Even if the author can substantiate the foregoing assumptions, the recommendation rests没看明白什么意思 in the further conclusion that the city should increase the budged for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. The author provides little information concerning the present improvements and budged. Perhaps the improvements are sufficient enough. And maybe the recreational use will not need to be improved at all. It is also possible that the city council may charge people for the use, and put these thismoney for improvements. In addition, even if the raise is needed, the council should also consider the following questions. How much  money should be put into this use? Do Doesthe council have so much money? And should they use this money on this issue rather than to solve other pressing problems? 反问句比较有气势 我喜欢With the same money they may build a nursing home for the senior, they may contribute to orphanage for the homeless child, they may add it to research or medical fund, or they may just use it to prevent environmental pollution. Under either scenario, the budget appears undeserving of the recommended raise based on this particular criterion. 感觉这一段写的比较有内容

In conclusion, the author’s conclusion is not convincing as it stands. To bolster this recommendation, the author has to provide more evidence that the clean water project will work effective, and people are willing to do recreation in the river as long as it is clean. Still before I accept the final conclusion, the author must present more facts concerning the budget for improvements needs and deserve to be increased
攻击的次序没有问题，深度也不错，语言还行，^_^好像没什么要说的呢，嘻嘻
加油吧！

staroceanUID: 2271193

should(should不合适吧，你再感觉一下) not overshadow
instead这个词不准确 responsible for the fact
这两个是我从阅读0和官方里背的哈哈。

rests没看明白什么意思 in
搁置在的意思，也是背的哈哈。

应该是达到要求吧，感觉表达有点问题as
这个我确实想写达到要求，不会写。哈哈。

谢谢帮我改呢 谢谢

eric_panUID: 2270415

汗啊！呵呵
自己也记下，下次别给别人改错了，惭愧ing
回去加油！

[ 本帖最后由 eric_pan 于 2007-1-14 00:45 编辑 ]

staroceanUID: 2271193

原帖由 eric_pan 于 2007-1-14 00:34 发表
汗啊！呵呵
自己也记下，下次别给别人改错了，惭愧ing
回去加油！

这不叫惭愧叫谨慎哦，谢谢eric呢