Argument137 欢迎来拍~留链必回~

kexinyupiaoUID: 2250204

TOPIC: 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 the editorial presented above, the author recommends the Mason City council to increase its budget for improvements to the lands along the Mason River because the residents will be inclined to use the river for recreation. To support this recommendation, the author points out that residents seldom use the Mason River at present because the river is not clean enough, but an agency has announced to clean up the river. However, close scrutiny reveals that the recommendation suffers from several logical fallacies as it stands.

One question with the recommendation is that it relies on the assumption that the region's residents regard water sports as a favorite form of recreation as the author cites the survey as evidence. However, the survey does not provide any information of the amount of people involved in the survey, and whether these people are representative enough of the region's residents as a whole. So it is possible that the majority of the residents are not fond of water sports. If this is the case, then the author can not convince me that the people are more inclined to do water sports in the Mason River.  

Another problem with the recommendation is that the author assumes that the agency which has planned to clean up the river will have the ability to clean up Mason River. Without further information of the water condition and the ability of the agency to clean up river, it is entirely possible that the water is contaminated to the point that it cannot be cleaned up to meet the demand of the residents. Or the agency does not have effective measures to take care of the river. If either is the case, then the author's conclusion that the use of the river for recreation will increase is groundless.

Even assuming the river can be clean up by the agency, the author still can not rely on the information provided to reach the conclusion that the recreational use of the river is probably to increase. Even if most people living in Mason River prefer water sports as the author assumes, it does not necessarily means that they would like to undertake water sports in a river whether the river is clean or not. Moreover, granted recreation use of the river is going to increase, whether the budget should be increased to improve the publicly owned land along the river is still open to doubt. As the author fails to provide enough evidence to show the condition and utility of the lands, it is very likely that the publicly owned lands are already qualified enough to meet the needs of the residents.

To sum up, the author fails to convince me that the council has the necessity to increase its budget for the lands' improvements. To bolster the recommendation, the author must provide convincing evidence that agency has the ability to clean up the river to the extent that people are satisfied, and the residents are willing to enjoy water sports in Mason River after it being cleaned up. To better assess the recommendation, I would also need more detailed information about the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.

zdjUID: 2303099

In the editorial presented above, the author recommends the Mason City council to increase its budget for improvements to the lands along the Mason River because the residents will be inclined to use the river for recreation. To support this recommendation, the author points out that residents seldom use the Mason River at present because the river is not clean enough, but an agency has announced to clean up the river. However, close scrutiny reveals that the recommendation suffers from several logical fallacies as it stands. 归纳论点准备发起进攻 写的真好啊！

One question with the recommendation is that it relies on the assumption that the region's residents regard water sports as a favorite form of recreation as the author cites the survey as evidence. However, the survey does not provide any information of the amount of people involved in the survey, and whether these people are representative enough of the region's residents as a whole. So it is possible that the majority of the residents are not fond of water sports. If this is the case, then the author can not convince me that the people are more inclined to do water sports in the Mason River.  

Another problem with the recommendation is that the author assumes that the agency which has planned to clean up the river will have the ability to clean up Mason River. Without further information of the water condition and the ability of the agency to clean up river, it is entirely possible that the water is contaminated to the point that it cannot be cleaned up to meet the demand of the residents. Or the agency does not have effective measures to take care of the river. If either is the case, then the author's conclusion that the use of the river for recreation will increase is groundless.

（承上启下）Even assuming the river can be clean up by the agency(言简意赅的包括了上面的两点GOOD), the author still can not rely on the information provided to reach the conclusion that the recreational use of the river is probably to increase. Even if most people living in Mason River prefer water sports as the author assumes, it does not necessarily means that they would like to undertake water sports in a river whether the river is clean or not. Moreover, granted recreation use of the river is going to increase, whether the budget should be increased to improve the publicly owned land along the river is still open to doubt(版主没见过这个句型，能不能告诉一下出处QQ421141996).这句话好像少了一个连词） As the author fails to provide enough evidence to show the condition and utility of the lands, it is very likely that the publicly owned lands are already qualified enough to meet the needs of the residents.
To sum up, the author fails to convince me that the council has the necessity to increase its budget for the lands' improvements. To bolster the recommendation, the author must provide convincing evidence that agency has the ability to clean up the river to the extent that people are satisfied, and the residents are willing to enjoy water sports in Mason River after it being cleaned up. To better assess the recommendation, I would also need more detailed information about the publicly owned lands along the Mason River文章结构清晰，感觉起来如行云流水。
希望能得到您的批改   argument 137https://bbs.gter.net/thread-608972-1-1.html

[ 本帖最后由 zdj 于 2007-2-13 09:29 编辑 ]

yagagaUID: 2140053

TOPIC: 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."

呵呵，我这篇限时写的不好，其实如果你限时能写到现在的水平就可以了，如果已经开始限时了，那就cong一下,argu5分没有问题
In the editorial presented above, the author recommends the Mason City council to increase its budget for improvements to the lands along the Mason River because the residents will be inclined to use the river for recreation. To support this recommendation, the author points out that residents seldom use the Mason River at present because the river is not clean enough, but an agency has announced to clean up the river. However, close scrutiny reveals that the recommendation suffers from several logical fallacies as it stands.我觉得这样罗嗦的开头仅仅是为了凑字数的，没有多大好处，仅仅把题目重复了一篇，没有ETS的范文是这样的

One question with the recommendation is that it relies on the assumption that the region's residents regard water sports as a favorite form of recreation as the author cites the survey as evidence. However, the survey does not provide any information of the amount of people involved in the survey, and whether these people are representative enough of the region's residents as a whole. So it is possible that the majority of the residents are not fond of water sports. If this is the case, then the author can not convince me that the people are more inclined to do water sports in the Mason River. 仍然模版气相当的重，语言还是可以的

Another problem with the recommendation is that the author assumes that the agency which has planned to clean up the river will have the ability to clean up Mason River. Without further information of the water condition and the ability of the agency to clean up river, it is entirely possible that the water is contaminated to the point that it cannot be cleaned up to meet the demand of the residents. Or the agency does not have effective measures to take care of the river. If either is the case, then the author's conclusion that the use of the river for recreation will increase is groundless. 这段的表达还不错，但是觉得还有其他值得攻击的地方，这里其实错误并不是十分明显

Even assuming the river can be clean up by the agency, the author still can not rely on the information provided to reach the conclusion that the recreational use of the river is probably to increase. Even if most people living in Mason River prefer water sports as the author assumes, it does not necessarily means that they would like to undertake water sports in a river whether the river is clean or not. 感觉没有说完，要说充分，到底有什么 情况下作者是不对的Moreover, granted recreation use of the river is going to increase, whether the budget should be increased to improve the publicly owned land along the river is still open to doubt. As the author fails to provide enough evidence to show the condition and utility of the lands, it is very likely that the publicly owned lands are already qualified enough to meet the needs of the residents.其实我觉得这一段是真正应该展开的地方

To sum up, the author fails to convince me that the council has the necessity to increase its budget for the lands' improvements. To bolster the recommendation, the author must provide convincing evidence that agency has the ability to clean up the river to the extent that people are satisfied, and the residents are willing to enjoy water sports in Mason River after it being cleaned up. To better assess the recommendation, I would also need more detailed information about the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.仍然觉得结尾罗嗦
呵呵，我个人觉得模版不好，开头不应该过多的重复题目，结尾不应该过多的重复自己的内容，仅仅是我自己的观点，呵呵，语言还是蛮好的

kexinyupiaoUID: 2250204

的确是在凑字数……本来还想隐瞒的
不幸被楼上的看出来的