Arguement137 第7次作业

菲子UID: 2311527

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: 446          TIME: 0:49:50          DATE: 2007-5-31

The arguer concludes that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improving the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, because the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. However, in this argument, the arguer fails to provide enough information of the river and his assumption that residents will go to a river whose quality of water once was bad to play is oversimplified.

The major flaw of the argument is that the arguer does not provide enough evidence of the river. Even if the quality of the water is appropriate for people to enjoy water sports, other aspects of a river such as the breadth or the speed of the water torrents are failed to be shown. If the river is not broad enough, some water sports such as boating cannot be going on. Besides, if the speed of the water torrents is too high, swimming and boating will become very dangerous. Even it is true that the river is appropriate for water sports, but the arguer fails to take into account that there might be another river which has been fully operated for recreational use. Unless the arguer provides enough information of the river and other potential competitor, the conclusion will not be accepted.

Another flaw is that the arguer hastily deduces the increment of recreational use, only because the agency has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Admittedly, the agency has some plans, but it is quite possible that the agency does not realize its plans for some reasons, supposing that the agency is not very reliable. Even if the plans come true, there is no evidence of the quality of water in the future. It is quite possible that the quality of water after the clean-up is still not suitable for recreational use. Even if the water is clean enough, it is still possible that many residents might not choose to recreate in the river for it was unclean in the past, even the quality is much better now.

Before I come to the conclusion, there is some other flaws that should be mentioned. Firstly, it is possible that the survey are only conducted at a few residents who enjoy water sports very much. Secondly, even if the recreational use of the river will increase, the budget for improving the publicly owned lands is not necessarily to increase.

In conclusion, to make the argument logically, the arguer should provide enough information of the river and other rivers in the Mason city. What is more, the arguer is responsible for showing that the residents will go to the Mason River for recreation if the clean-up plans are realized.

ghost33UID: 2267869

The arguer concludes that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improving the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, because the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. However, in this argument, the arguer fails to provide enough information of the river and his assumption that residents will go to a river whose quality of water once was bad to play is oversimplified.

The major flaw of the argument is that the arguer does not provide enough evidence of the river河的证据？建议这句话还是不要太节约词语了。. Even if the quality of the water is appropriate for people to enjoy water sports, other aspects of a river such as the breadth or the speed of the water torrents are failed to be shown（这句话用被动时态显得很累赘，而且也觉得没说完，show to what？）. If the river is not broad enough, some water sports such as boating cannot be going on. Besides, if the speed of the water torrents is too high, swimming and boating will become very dangerous觉得这里批驳得掷地有声！. Even it is true that the river is appropriate for water sports, but the arguer fails to take into account that there might be another river which has been fully operated for recreational use. Unless the arguer provides enough information of the river and other potential competitor, the conclusion will not be accepted.

Another flaw is that the arguer hastily deduces the increment of recreational use, only because the agency has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Admittedly, the agency has some plans, but it is quite possible that the agency does not realize its plans for some reasons, supposing that the agency is not very reliable. Even if the plans come true, there is no evidence of the quality of water in the future用evidence不好吧？guarantee？. It is quite possible that the quality of water after the clean-up is still not suitable for recreational use. Even if the water is clean enough, it is still possible that many residents might not choose to recreate in the river for it was unclean in the past, even the quality is much better now.

Before I come to the conclusion, there is some other flaws that should be mentioned. Firstly, it is possible that the survey are only conducted at a few residents who enjoy water sports very much. Secondly, even if the recreational use of the river will increase, the budget for improving the publicly owned lands is not necessarily to increase.

In conclusion, to make the argument logically（logical）, the arguer should provide enough information of the river and other rivers in the Mason city. What is more, the arguer is responsible for showing that the residents will go to the Mason River for recreation if the clean-up plans are realized.

我的argument批改 中有建议说：这里面是说，因为用的量会增加，而预算需要增加，所以主要批驳点在预算到底够不够，仅供参考！