argument137

zdjUID: 2303099

argument137   请大家帮助批改一下，谢谢您！

提纲；
1 总结题目的论点
2 从swimming boating and fishing三个方面说明水的质量下降与recreational activity减少不一定有关
3从统计学上，agenda 的能力和是否需要RISE MONEY 三点说明存在的问题
4总结


The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. In order to educe his recommendation ,the author pointed out that because of the decline in the quality of water in the Mason River, diversities of water sports, like swimming boating and fishing, has disappeared .So the argument for sponsoring  the agency responsible for rivers to ameliorate the Mason River seems logical.

However, because there are lots of other possible alternative for people who don't prefer the Mason River as the entertaining place, the cause and effect relationship between the decline of quality of water and lack of water sports might be fundamental. Such alternative may include the fact that nowadays more and more man-made pools ,whose corresponding appliance make person more comfort, have come into being ! It is possible that various places, like Disney, have become people's newest favorite instead of boating! In addition, the new generation, who has the belief that time is money, seldom spend lots of previous time in the time-consuming entertainment ------fishing. In conclusion, the old recreational activities related to the Mason River has been substituted by entertainment appeared in modern society.

To analyze the recommendation more carefully, we can sought out more fallacies as follows! First, we can't reach the conclusion that the majority of people in this region  are in favor of this recommendation, because the people who participate in the survey wasn't sure to represent the region! Secondly, the author have no evidence to convince us that the agenda has the capability to clean up the Mason River! The last but not the lest, we have to doubt;' is it necessary for the government to improve the publicly owned lands, maybe the land has met the demand and don't need to be improved!

Overall, the reasoning behind  sponsoring the agency responsible for rivers seems logical as presented above since the author was acting in the agenda's interest and have an willing to get fund from the government !.  However, before any final decisions are made about the sponsorship, the agenda should provide enough evidence to testify the relationship between the decline of quality of water and lack of water sports ,the capability to clean up the river ,and  whether the land should be improved!


[ 本帖最后由 zdj 于 2007-2-13 09:00 编辑 ]

kexinyupiaoUID: 2250204

加油~~

[ 本帖最后由 kexinyupiao 于 2007-2-15 12:58 编辑 ]

kexinyupiaoUID: 2250204

argument137   请大家帮助批改一下，谢谢您！
最好給一下題目哈
提纲；
1 总结题目的论点
2 从swimming boating and fishing三个方面说明水的质量下降与recreational activity减少不一定有关
3从统计学上，agenda 的能力和是否需要RISE MONEY 三点说明存在的问题
4总结


The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. In order to educe his recommendation ,the author pointed一般都用現在時態 out that because of the decline in the quality of water in the Mason River不一定是decline阿，也許本來就很髒呢, diversities of water sports, like swimming boating and fishing, has disappeared .So the argument for sponsoring the agency responsible for rivers to ameliorate the Mason River seems logical.作者的結論沒有找准阿

However, because there are lots of other possible alternative for people who don't prefer the Mason River as the entertaining place, the cause and effect relationship between the decline of quality of water and lack of water sports might be fundamental. Such alternative may include the fact that nowadays more and more man-made pools ,whose corresponding appliance make person more comfort, have come into being ! It is possible that various places, like Disney, have become people's newest favorite instead of boating! In addition, the new generation, who has the belief that time is money, seldom spend lots of previous time in the time-consuming entertainment ------fishing. In conclusion, the old recreational activities related to the Mason River has been substituted by entertainment appeared in modern society.應該指出調查的沒有力度

To analyze the recommendation more carefully, we can sought改爲seek out more fallacies as follows! First, we can't reach the conclusion that the majority of people in this region are in favor of this recommendation, because the people who participate in the survey wasn't sure to represent the region! Secondly, the author have該文has no evidence to convince us that the agenda has the capability to clean up the Mason River! The last but not the lest Last but not the least, we have to doubt ;'? whether is it necessary for the government to improve the publicly owned lands, maybe the land has met the demand and don't need to be improved!

Overall, the reasoning behind  sponsoring the agency responsible for rivers seems logical as presented above since the author was acting in the agenda's interest and have an willing to get fund from the government !.  However, before any final decisions are made about the sponsorship, the agenda should provide enough evidence to testify the relationship between the decline of quality of water and lack of water sports, the capability to clean up the river ,and  whether the land should be improved!通篇好多“！”

每段第一句應該指出攻擊點哈。第一次改樓主的，多多指教阿

zdjUID: 2303099

谢谢啦!