Argument137 [Victors小组]第七次作业 by solartorch

solartorchUID: 2244205

137The 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."

1，不一定是由于水脏而seldom use.有可能是其他原因
2，Annouced plans不一定就代表水一定就能被clean.
3，Mason City residents 说不定已经习惯了其他的运动。
4，即使clean了，lands也不一定用的到。

字数：605。这篇作文写得不好，见谅。
While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny--in four respects.

First of all, the argument assumes that the seldom use of Mason River is because of the pollution of water. However, it is entirely possible that Mason City residents do not use Mason River due to other reasons. For example, perhaps there is another river near Mason City which are more suitable for the water sports. Or perhaps Mason River has a complicated geographical and physical terrain which is dangerous for the recreation activities to be carried out. For that matter, the complaints about the quality of water has a loose relation with the usage of river. The author should investigate more thoroughly on the reason why residents are avoiding the river.

Secondly, the argument assumes that the agency responsible for rivers will clean up Mason River with no doubt. Yet, the argument fails to substantiate this assumption. The only information provided by the author is that the agency has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Background about the agency--including it's authenticity and credit-- has not been given in this argument. It is too hasty to conclude that Mason River will be cleaned up as expected. Moreover, the contents of the plan are not introduced to readers. This makes to impede the advisable judgment from people who may concern about the problem. In short, without furnish more details about the agency and its plan addressing Mason River, the author cannot confidently infer that the announced plans are leading to positive result.

Thirdly, even if Mason River will be cleaned up as expected, the argument's belief that Mason River will be popular for water sports is still unwarranted. It is quite possible that Mason City residents have already developed their recreational activity system during these years. Perhaps they are getting used to biking or hiking and has joined the clubs about such recreational activities. Or they have been the members of activities in another nearby river. So even though residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation, they're probably not ready to come back to Mason River. Without considering these possibilities, the author cannot justifiably draw any conclusion that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase.

Finally, the author fails to provide any firm relation between the recreational use of river and the improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The water sports like swimming, fishing and boating are not necessarily related to the bank usage. In addition, the readers of this argument are not provided the information about the current condition of the publicly owned lands along the Mason River and the current budget on it. Thus, it is possible that the recreational activities in the river do not call for the improvements of the lands along the river. Or perhaps the bank is sufficiently qualified for the resident's recreational activity use. Or the budget is high enough for the improvements. Without ruling out all these facts, the conclusion that Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is dubious at best.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary investigations.

jennetrjUID: 2275453

While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, the evidences and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny--in four respects.

First of all, the argument assumes that the seldom use of Mason River is because of the pollution of water[water pollution]. However, it is entirely possible that Mason City residents do not use Mason River due to other reasons. For example, perhaps there is another river near Mason City which are more suitable for the water sports. Or perhaps Mason River has a [for the]complicated geographical and physical terrain[,] which is dangerous for the recreation activities to be carried out [on Mason River]. For that matter, the complaints about the quality of water has a loose relation with the usage of river[ seldom recreation activities on the river]. The author should investigate more thoroughly on [for] the reason why residents are avoiding the river.

Secondly, the argument assumes that the agency responsible for rivers will clean up Mason River with no doubt. Yet, the argument fails to substantiate this assumption. The only information provided by the author is that the agency has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Background about the agency--including it's authenticity and credit-- [which could ensure the accomplishment of the work]has not been given in this argument. It is too hasty to conclude that Mason River will be cleaned up as expected. Moreover, the contents of the plan are not introduced to readers. This makes to impede the advisable judgment from people who may concern about the problem. [明白意思是说计划的内容没有披露，使得人们不能对其提出看法(是否可行），可句子怪怪的，怎么组织才好呢]In short, without furnish more details about the agency and its plan addressing Mason River, the author cannot confidently infer that the announced plans are leading to positive result.

Thirdly, even if Mason River will be cleaned up as expected, the argument's belief that Mason River will be popular for water sports is still unwarranted. It is quite possible that Mason City residents have already developed their recreational activity system during these years. Perhaps they are getting used to biking or hiking and has joined the clubs about such recreational activities. Or they have been the members of activities in another nearby river. So even though residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation, they're probably not ready to come back to Mason River. Without considering these possibilities, the author cannot justifiably draw any conclusion that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase.

Finally, the author fails to provide any firm relation between the recreational use of river and the [necessitiy for]improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The water sports like swimming, fishing and boating are not necessarily related to the bank usage. In addition, the readers of this argument are not provided the information about the current condition of the publicly owned lands along the Mason River and the current budget on it. Thus, it is possible that the recreational activities in the river do not call for the improvements of the lands along the river. Or perhaps the bank is sufficiently [already] qualified for the resident's recreational activity use. Or the budget is high enough for the improvements. Without ruling out all these facts, the conclusion that Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is dubious at best. [这段的攻击内容、反驳例证很多，可以系统整理一下放在一起，这样跟显LZ的思维逻辑缜密性]

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful assumptions and evidences. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information as well as some necessary investigations.


感觉LZ在ARGUMENT写作上比上次偶互改时提高了很多，祝贺！大家一起努力，气死ETS，谁说中国学生写作差！

solartorchUID: 2244205

呃。。。楼上的以前改过我作文？偶咋不记得了。。。