argument137 oceanus4月作文小组3月26日第二次作业

oceanusUID：2283238

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: 372          TIME: 0:47:00          DATE: 2007-3-26

The author recommends that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River because recreational use of the river is likely to increase after the agency cleans up Mason River. The argument seems to be logical.

However, the author provides no evidence to prove that Mason City residents are avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. It is possible that there are other possible explanations. Perhaps the river is too small, or perhaps the environment around the river is not beautiful. Maybe there are few trees and flowers and too many buildings on the bank of the river, so it is not a good place to swim, fish, and boat. In short, without ruling out other possible alternatives, the author can not conclude that Mason City residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough.

Another problem with the argument is that it is not certain that the agency will clean up Mason River. It is difficult to say that the agency will accomplish its work excellently and punctually. Maybe the plan will be laid on the table because of the less of money, the feasibility of the plan or other causes. So before the author makes a decision, the author must affirm that the plans will be actualized.

Finally, even if Mason City residents are avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough and the agency will clean up Mason River, will the recreational use of the river increase? It is not sure. The author provides nothing about the number of people who consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation, so even the river is cleaned, the number of people who will use the river will not increase. As a result, the recreational use of the river is possible invariable or changeless.

In sum, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strength the argument, the author must provide more evidences about the reason why Mason City residents are avoiding the river and the details of the plans. So, the author should not conclude before ruling out other possible alternatives.

pishengUID：2169170

The author recommends that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River because recreational use of the river is likely to increase after the agency cleans up Mason River. The argument seems to be logical.

However, the author provides no evidence to prove that Mason City residents are avoiding（refuse to go to） the river because they think that it is not clean enough. It is possible that there are other possible explanations.(“可能还有别的可能”我感觉汉语这么说都很别扭。就简单说：There might be other possible expanations就行了。) Perhaps the river is too small, or perhaps the environment（scenery） around the river is not beautiful. Maybe there are few trees and flowers and too many buildings on the bank of the river, so it is not a good place to swim, fish, and(or) boat. In short, without ruling out other possible alternatives, the author can not conclude that Mason City residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough.

Another problem with the argument is that it is not certain that the agency will clean up Mason River. It is difficult to say that the agency will accomplish its work excellently and punctually. Maybe the plan will be laid on the table because of the less(lack) of money, the feasibility of the plan or other causes. So before the author makes (making)a decision, the author must affirm that the plans will be actualized.

Finally, even if Mason City residents are avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough and the agency will clean up Mason River, will the recreational use of the river increase? It is not (for) sure. The author provides nothing about the number of people who consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation, so even the river is cleaned, the number of people who will use the river will not increase. As a result, the recreational use of the river is possible invariable or changeless.

In sum, the argument is not convincing as it stands. To strength the argument, the author must provide more evidences about the reason why Mason City residents are avoiding the river and the details of the plans. So, the author should not conclude before ruling out other possible alternatives.

有进步，但是还需再加强，语言是长期练的，短期内没法突破。
但内容上却是可以精进的，多看范文，充实内容及论证才是硬道理！
扬长避短，加油！

忽然发现vivian组长将批改顺序改了，hoho~
看来oceanus你也批错了哦~8过没关系~大家都有提高！:loveliness:

[ 本帖最后由 pisheng 于 2007-3-27 15:23 编辑 ]

oceanusUID：2283238

恩，呵呵，我也是下午才发现改错了，呵呵，一起加油！