argument137 【mettle作文小组】第八次作业 by imagic80

imagic80UID: 2342633

137 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."



In this editorial, the author recommends that the Mason City (MC) countil will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River (MR). To bolster his conclusion, he predicts that recreational use of the river will increase with the announced plans to clean up MR. His prediction deserves to doubt without accounting for other possibilities.
The major problem with this argument is the unwarranted assumption that MC residents seldom using the nearby MR for any kind of recreational activity is due to their worry about the quality of the water in the river. In fact, whether a river is fit for recreational activity is decided by many factors except the quality of the river. The speed of the stream, the depth of the water and the underwater creatures of the river also must be taken into consideration. Perhaps the stream flows very fast for boating. Or perhaps the water is very deep for fishing. Furthermore, it might also be dangerous to swim in the river because of cruel flesh-eating fishes. Only cleaning up the river can not solve all the barriors preventing residents  from using it for water sports.
Another problem that undermine the argument is that announcing plans to clean up the river does not imply that the water will soon clean eough for water sports. We don’t know how long it will take before the agency apply their plans into practice. We also don’t know how seriously the water is polluted. The same is true of their effectiveness. If the project lasts for 5 years or even longer than 5 years, the newly built public facilities will be buried in the weeds. If that is the case, to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MR is only a waste of monery.
Finally, what is the relationship between recreational use of MR and the publicly owned lands along the river? Even if residents prefer to have water sports on the river. We still can not be convinced that government must improve the public land. It is very likely that natural surrounding of this land is very suitable for water sports and no improvement is needed.
To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Vefore we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to prove that the reason for residents avoiding MR is just about the quality of its water. Meanwhile he also should provide more evidence concerning the cleaning project and publicly own lands.

werecatUID: 2289296

In this editorial, the author recommends that the Mason City (MC) countil[council] will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River (MR). To bolster his conclusion, he predicts that recreational use of the river will increase with the announced plans to clean up MR. His prediction deserves to doubt[deserves doubt/ to be doubted] without accounting for other possibilities.

The major problem with this argument is the unwarranted assumption that MC residents seldom using the nearby MR for any kind of recreational activity is due to their worry about the quality of the water in the river. In fact, whether a river is fit for recreational activity is decided by many factors except[besides…否则就是排除水质因素了] the quality of the river. The speed of the stream, the depth of the water and the underwater creatures of the river also must be taken into consideration. Perhaps the stream flows very fast for boating. Or perhaps the water is very deep for fishing. Furthermore, it might also be dangerous to swim in the river because of cruel flesh-eating fishes.[这个想法。。。] Only cleaning up the river can not solve all the barriors[barriers] preventing residents  from using it for water sports.

Another problem that undermine[undermines] the argument is that announcing plans to clean up the river does not imply that the water will soon clean eough[be clean enough] for water sports. We don’t know how long it will take before the agency apply their plans into practice. We also don’t know how seriously the water is polluted. The same is true of their effectiveness. If the project lasts for 5 years or even longer than 5 years, the newly built public facilities will be buried in the weeds. If that is the case, to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MR is only a waste of monery.[money][这个fallacy不太典型，其实可以找别的更明显的]

Finally, what is the relationship between recreational use of MR and the publicly owned lands along the river? Even if residents prefer to have water sports on the river. We still can not be convinced that government must improve the public land. It is very likely that natural surrounding of this land is very suitable for water sports and no improvement is needed.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Vefore[before] we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to prove that the reason for residents avoiding MR is just about the quality of its water. Meanwhile he also should provide more evidence concerning the cleaning project and publicly own lands.


[Argue没什么好多说的，大家都差不多吧]

[ 本帖最后由 werecat 于 2007-7-21 21:11 编辑 ]