Argument137 [五一互助小组] by Cheney

hotmailcjUID: 2253862

题目：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."


While the argument above seems reasonable, however, the author fails to take into all the necessary consideration. First, the mere fact that the agency in charge of rivers in Mason City announced the plans to clean Mason River up does not absolutely mean that the river will be clean enough for recreational activity in future. Actually, from a detailed plan to a practical plan execution there are many concrete and steps, including collecting sufficient funds, measuring up the degree of river pollution, cleaning the waste up in the river and so on. Such complex steps and the extent of river pollution all will affect the efficiency of cleaning the Mason River up. Thus, after Mason River is cleaned up, we do not know whether it will be clean enough for recreational activity use, and about this question we can not find corresponding evidence and explanation from editorial. So, the author's prediction that recreational use of river may increase is unconvincing.

Even if the quality of Mason River improves greatly enough for residents to do water sports, such kind of use of the river may not increase. Since citizens of Mason City have seldom used the river in the past, will they frequently use it after cleaning it up? Will they remain worry about the quality of river? Are other conditions such as climate and public utilities nearby suitable for water sports besides water quality? Will they come back to fish and swim and boat in the river? Until these questions are answered definitely, the author cannot claim that recreational use of the river is likely to increase.

Additionally, even if the use of Mason River for recreational activity would increase, the recommendation that Mason City council should enhance its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River remains open to question. No evidence shows that public facilities along Mason River need to improve. It is quite possible that present public utilities such as nearby transportation, luminaries for street lighting, location for rest, restaurants and so on are already perfect. For that matter, increasing budget for public lands along the river, which will certainly result in decreasing budget for otherwise, makes a unreasonable distribution of resources.

In a word, without a complete evaluation of local situation at present or a total picture of using the river for recreational activity in future, the local government must make a fresh politic plan.

[ 本帖最后由 hotmailcj 于 2007-7-12 18:39 编辑 ]

lesley_219UID: 2221883

While the argument above seems reasonable, however, the author fails to take into all the necessary consideration. First, the mere fact that the agency in charge of rivers in Mason City announced the plans (the plans可以删掉吧) to clean Mason River up does not absolutely mean that the river will be clean enough for recreational activity in future. Actually, from a detailed plan to a practical plan execution there are many concrete(concreate是形容词,后面加个名词measure什么的才对) and steps, including collecting sufficient funds, measuring up the degree of river pollution, cleaning the waste up in the river and so on. Such complex steps and the extent of river pollution all will affect the efficiency of cleaning the Mason River up. Thus,(个人觉得这里的关系好象不是因果,如果用even if假设之类的关系,是不是会更好,呵呵,个人感觉) after Mason River is cleaned up, we do not know whether it will be clean enough for recreational activity use, and about this question we can not find corresponding evidence and explanation from editorial. So, the author's prediction that recreational use of river may increase is unconvincing.

Even if the quality of Mason River improves greatly enough for residents to do water sports, such kind of use of the river may not increase. Since citizens of Mason City have seldom used the river in the past, will they frequently use it after cleaning it up? Will they remain worry about the quality of river? Are other conditions such as climate and public utilities nearby suitable for water sports besides water quality? Will they come back to fish and swim and boat in the river? Until these questions are answered definitely, the author cannot claim that recreational use of the river is likely to increase.(这段论述的很好,承接第一段的关系很紧密,段内的每个问题提出的也也很好,但是结尾应该再多说几句话,如果一个untill就完了,给人感觉好象突然就完了,问题没说清楚)

Additionally, even if the use of Mason River for recreational activity would increase, the recommendation that Mason City council should enhance its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River remains open to question. No evidence shows that public facilities along Mason River need to improve. It is quite possible that present public utilities such as nearby transportation, luminaries for street lighting, location for rest, restaurants and so on are already perfect. For that matter, increasing budget for public lands along the river, which will certainly result in decreasing budget for otherwise, makes a unreasonable distribution of resources.

In a word, without a complete evaluation of local situation at present or a total picture of using the river for recreational activity in future, the local government must make a fresh politic plan.
整体觉得逻辑关系很好,每段和每段的连接很紧密,如果再多变化一些句式和句形就更好了,加油!
再说一句,我看了你给我改的A178,觉得你的逻辑观点很好,偷学一下