Argument137 [mettle小组]第八次作业by werecat

werecatUID: 2289296

In the editorial, the writer suggests that due to poor quality of the river water, few residents use Mason River(MR) for recreational sports, although some survey reveals that on of their favorite form of recreation is water sports. Therefore, with the annoucement of cleaning plans of the regional water agency, MR is certain to attract more residents and local government may have a good reason to increase its budget in improving publicly owned lands along MR. Unfortunately, this editorial lacks some critical information to make itself more convincible.

First of all, it is a common problem that some narrowed or twisted survey undermines the whole reasoning chain and then leads to wrong conclusions. In this case, some important parameters of the survey is missing. How many people give their opinions? What are all the surveyed people doing? Do they live in a single neighbourhood or do they share some specific understandings? Without these further information, we can not come to the conclusion that all the Mason residents like water sports very much.

Then, supposing that water sports really hold a high position in the minds of Mason residents. However, we still have no clue showing that it is because of the bad water quality that prevents people from use MR as recreational area. Chances are that it is chill and bleak at this time of the year, few people are willing to go out except for work, so it is quite reasonable that seldom people go to MR for fishing or boating, not mentioning swimming. Since the details of the region is not provided, we may not say that there are no other rivers or even some beaches and shores nearby. If so, then may be residents are more likely to go to other rivers or beaches for recreation. In a word, the water quality is not the disadvantage(or sole disadvantage) of MR.

Still, even though the agency cleaned up MR, there is no guarantee that lots of people will flock in, so increasing budgets immeditately is risky and headlong. As I have stated above, it still remains a question whether the residents truly adore water sports. Besides, there may be some other reasons other than water quality that hampers MR from attracting recreational activities. Since then, the local council will be dim-witted in allocating much budgets for the improvement of publicly owned lands along MR before scrutinize the whole situation of MR.

In conclusion, this editorial neglects some vital points in the reasoning, so it renders to be ridicules. Before the readers may be convinced, the writer must provide us with more detailed information, such as the validity of the survey, the overall condition of MR, and the prospects of publicly owned lands along MR.

先写了第八次...第七次的稍后补上吧

AndierUID: 2302600

In the editorial, the writer suggests that due to poor quality of the river water, few residents use Mason River(MR) for recreational sports, although some survey reveals that on of(这两个词我迷惑了。。) their favorite form of recreation is water sports. Therefore, with the annoucement of cleaning plans of the regional water agency, MR is certain to attract more residents and local government may have a good reason to increase its budget in improving publicly owned lands along MR(这句没加 Arguer说 感觉反而像你顺着他的同意了). Unfortunately, this editorial lacks some critical information to make itself more convincible(convincing 是说服力强的，convincible是可被说服的).

First of all, it is a common problem that some narrowed or twisted survey undermines the whole reasoning chain and then leads to wrong conclusions. In this case, some important parameters of the survey is missing. How many people give their opinions? What are all the surveyed people doing? Do they live in a single neighbourhood or do they share some specific understandings? Without these further information, we can not come to the conclusion that all the Mason residents like water sports very much.

Then, supposing that water sports really hold a high position in the minds of Mason residents. However, we still have no clue showing that it is because of the bad water quality that prevents people from use MR as recreational area. Chances are that it is chill and bleak at this time of the year, few people are willing to go out except for work, so it is quite reasonable that seldom people go to MR for fishing or boating, not mentioning swimming.(感觉这种具体的怀疑是需要的，nice) Since the details of the region is not provided, we may not say that there are no other rivers or even some beaches and shores nearby. If so, then may be residents are more likely to go to other rivers or beaches for recreation. In a word, the water quality is not the disadvantage(or sole disadvantage) of MR.

Still, even though the agency cleaned up MR, there is no guarantee that lots of people will flock in, so increasing budgets immeditately is risky and headlong. As I have(可以省掉显得更简洁点) stated above, it still remains a question whether the residents truly adore water sports. Besides, there may be some other reasons other than water quality that hampers MR from attracting recreational activities(这一句不是上一段的内容么.?). Since then, the local council will be dim-witted in allocating much budgets for the improvement of publicly owned lands along MR before scrutinize the whole situation of MR.

In conclusion, this editorial neglects some vital points in the reasoning, so it renders to be ridicules. Before the readers may be convinced, the writer must provide us with more detailed information, such as the validity of the survey, the overall condition of MR, and the prospects of publicly owned lands along MR.

小弟水平仍需提高, 意见的话仅供参考哈

语言上没问题. 不过A 语言的提高也不难. 多看下范文总结出一套自己的小模版就好.有时候也不是特意的模版,就是觉得好记的清楚,就不自觉地会用了.

总体来讲,觉得开头抓住他最主要的问题, 稍微提两下就好, 不用过于完整的重述他的问题.. 每个段落之内可以再详细地说为什么不合理.好像第二段那样,说可能是因为天气等等. 一来可以增加字数,二来确实是丰富了不少. 像反驳调查的那段, 感觉虽然你指出了它的不合理, 也没说清楚可能有什么问题. 顶多是质疑程度, 要反驳的话还得再具体.

关于个段落之间的顺序,我觉得可以参考下那片传说中的 "Argument 就应该这么写" 。

加油：）