argument137 4月作文小组3月26日第二次作业 by寂寞樱花

寂寞樱花UID：2306511

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."
WORDS: 686          TIME: 1:23:43          DATE: 2007-3-26

In this argument the author reaches the conclusion that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need to be improve because recreational use of the river will be increased. The basis for this recommendation is that Mason River seldom be used by Mason City residents for any kind of recreational activity before is because of the complaints about the quality of the water in the river before and the agency responsible for the river has announced plans to clean up it. An additional reason given in support of this recommendation is that there are surveys show that residents here consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation.
    Firstly, the author commits a fallacy of "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in assuming that the complaints about the quality of the water in the river is the cause of seldom using of Mason River of the residents for recreational activity. The only evidence offered to support the claim is that complains occurred before seldom recreational use of the river. However, the evidence is insufficient to establish the claim in question because a mere chronological relationship is only one of the indicators of a causal relationship and, therefore, does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. To establish a general causal relationship between complains about the quality of the water in the river and the seldom recreational use of the river, other factors that could result in seldom recreational use by residents of the river should be considered and eliminated. For example, is the speed of the water flow too fast, or, is the river not suitable for recreational use like water sport? The author's failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the seldom recreational use of the river renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.
    Secondly, even if the seldom recreational use of the river is caused by the quality of the water in the river, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization in assuming that the announcement of the agency responsible to plan to clean up Mason River will automatically result to a clean water of the river. The author does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim. The announcement while suggestive in trends is insufficient to warrant its truth because there is no reason to believe that the agency will carry out their plans now and even if they carry out immediately, we have no information about the quality of the project and how well will the plans be worked. Thus, there is no guarantee of the author's claim about the increasing of recreational use of the river.
    Thirdly, the information provided in this article is too vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who conducted these surveys, who responded, or when, where and how the surveys were conducted. Lacking information about the number of people surveyed and the number of respondent, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. For example, if 300 persons are surveyed but only 3 responded, the conclusion that residents in this region consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation would be highly suspect. Before the argument offers no evidence that would rule out this kind of interpretation, until these questions are answered, the results of the survey are worthless as evidence for the conclusion.
    Finally, even assuming that the water will be clean and the recreational use of the river will be increased. It is concludes too hastily that the publicly owned lands need to be improved. The author ignores the likehood that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River existing is enough for all the residents here for recreational activity. Lacking information about the population in Mason City and the conditions of existing publicly owned lands, the author cannot convince me that Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.
    In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need improving. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that quality of the water in the river is the reason that residents do not use Mason River for recreation.

oceanusUID：2283238

In this argument the author reaches the conclusion that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need to be improve because recreational use of the river will be increased. The basis for this recommendation is that that Mason River seldom be used by Mason City residents for any kind of recreational activity before is because of the complaints about the quality of the water in the river before and the agency responsible for the river has announced plans to clean up it. An additional reason given in support of this recommendation is that there are surveys show that residents here consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation.

Firstly, the author commits a fallacy of "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in assuming that the complaints about the quality of the water in the river is the cause of seldom using of Mason River of the(删掉) residents for recreational activity. The only evidence offered to support the claim is that complaints occurred before seldom recreational use of the river. However, the evidence is insufficient to establish the claim in question because a mere chronological relationship is only one of the indicators of a causal relationship and, therefore, does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. To establish a general causal relationship between complaints about the quality of the water in the river and the seldom recreational use of the river, other factors that could result in seldom recreational use by residents of the river should be considered and eliminated. For example, is the speed of the water flow too fast, or, is the river not suitable for recreational use like water sport? The author's failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the seldom recreational use of the river renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

Secondly, even if the seldom recreational use of the river is caused by the quality of the water in the river（与第一段构成让步，很好）, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization in assuming that the announcement of the agency responsible to plan to clean up Mason River will automatically result to a（删掉） clean water of the river. The author does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim. The announcement while suggestive in trends is insufficient to warrant its truth because there is no reason to believe that the agency will carry out their plans now and even if they carry out immediately, we have no information about the quality of the project and how well will the plans be worked. Thus, there is no guarantee of the author's claim about the increasing of recreational use of the river.

Thirdly, the information provided in this article is too vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who conducted these surveys, who responded, or when, where and how the surveys were conducted. Lacking information about the number of people surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. For example, if 300 persons are surveyed but only 3 responded, the conclusion that residents in this region consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation would be highly suspect. Before the argument offers no（删掉） evidence that would rule out this kind of interpretation, until these questions are answered, the results of the survey are worthless as evidence for the conclusion.

Finally, even assuming that the water will be clean and the recreational use of the river will be increased.（构成让步，非常好）It is concludes too hastily that（改为It is hasty to conclude that） the publicly owned lands need to be improved. The author ignores the likehood（改为likelihood） that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River existing（改为the existing publicly owned lands along the Mason River） is enough for all the residents here for recreational activity. Lacking information about the population in Mason City and the conditions of existing publicly owned lands, the author cannot convince me that Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need improving. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that quality of the water in the river is the reason that （改为why）residents do not use Mason River for recreation.

文章各段之间的逻辑性很好，较上一篇有了很大改进，语法错误也减少了，一起努力,加油。

[ 本帖最后由 oceanus 于 2007-3-27 10:12 编辑 ]

pishengUID：2169170

In this argument the author reaches the conclusion that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need to be improve(improved)because(as) recreational use of the river will be increased. The basis for this recommendation is that(最好再加一个that，使结构完整，即……is that that Mason……) Mason River seldom be(is seldom) used by Mason City residents for any kind of recreational activity before is because of the complaints about the quality of the water in the river before and the agency responsible for the river has announced plans to clean up it. An additional reason given in support of this recommendation is that there are（去掉） surveys show that residents here consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation.
    Firstly, the author commits a fallacy of "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in assuming that the complaints about the quality of the water in the river（建议去掉，貌似汉语也不说“河里的水”，累赘） is the cause of seldom using（little use） of Mason River of the residents for recreational activity. The only evidence offered to support the claim is that complains occurred before seldom recreational use of the river. However, the evidence is insufficient to establish the claim in question because a mere chronological relationship is only one of the indicators of a causal relationship and, therefore, does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. To establish a general causal relationship between complains about the quality of the water in the river and the seldom recreational use of the river, other factors that could result in seldom recreational use by residents of the river should be considered and eliminated(这句貌似过于繁琐了……). For example, is the speed of the water flow too fast, or, is the river not suitable for recreational use like water sport? The author's failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanations for the seldom recreational use of the river renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.
    Secondly, even if the seldom recreational use of the river is caused by the quality of the water in the river, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization in assuming that the announcement of the agency responsible to plan to clean up Mason River will automatically result to a clean water of the river. The author does not provide sufficient evidence to support the claim. The announcement while suggestive in trends is insufficient to warrant its truth because there is no reason to believe that the agency will carry out their plans now and even if they carry out immediately, we have no information about the quality of the project and how well will the plans be worked. Thus, there is no guarantee of the author's claim about the increasing of recreational use of the river.（这段比较充分，好）
    Thirdly, the information provided in this article is too vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who conducted these surveys, who responded, or when, where and how the surveys were conducted. Lacking information about the number of people surveyed and the number of respondent, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. For example, if 300 persons are surveyed but only 3 responded, the conclusion that residents in this region consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation would be highly suspect. Before the argument offers no evidence that would rule out this kind of interpretation, until these questions are answered, the results of the survey are worthless as evidence for the conclusion.（这种攻击的方式很通用，不过还可以再修改的个人化一点。）
    Finally, even assuming that the water will be clean and the recreational use of the river will be increased. It is（cut） concludes too hastily that the publicly owned lands need to be improved. The author ignores the likehood that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River existing is enough for all the residents here for recreational activity. Lacking information about the population in Mason City and the conditions of existing publicly owned lands, the author cannot convince me that Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.
    In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to prove that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need improving. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of the recommendation until the arguer can provide concrete evidence that quality of the water in the river is the reason that residents do not use Mason River for recreation.

first总体感觉。、模板化比较重。不是说模板不好，而是说框架是死的，但是应用是活的。没必要因为模板是那样子的就完全束缚住了手脚。
Secondly,能写出很长的句子当然是件好事，但是如果句意不够明确甚至拖沓到影响论证的程度，就得不偿失了。
Last but not least,不知道樱花同学是不是打字速度巨快那型的。如果是当然很好。如果不是，那是不是有必要写这么多时间者的推敲的事，平时练习时没问题的，但是真到考场上能否发挥出来就很难讲了。
Anyway ,潜力是无穷的，前途是光明的。加油！

[ 本帖最后由 pisheng 于 2007-3-27 16:08 编辑 ]