Argument137 【METTLE小组】第八次作业 by happyhappypig

happyhappypigUID: 2342810

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."

9:50-10:20
Words: 532

In the above argument, the arguer asserts that with the clean up plans of Mason River (MR), there would be more water activities and demands of budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the river. However, the arguer fails to reveal the real reason of seldom usage of MR, nor does he or she provide solid evidence to substantiate the needs of lands improvement.

First of all, whether the clean up plans would effectively turn MR a suitable place for water sports activities is open to doubt. Without any detail information about the strategies used in the cleaning plans, corresponding clearance procedures and durations or the final checking standards, no one can ensure such clean up plans would satisfy the public. At the same time, myriads of other alternatives should be taken into consideration upon the clearance of MR. For example, whether the chemical used during the de-contaminating procedures would stay in the water, whether the existence of such chemicals would cause any irritations or allergic effects to people. The population and diversity of micro-organism in the MR should not be neglected either. Without thorough analysis and evaluation from the above aspects, the conclusion that the responsible agency would clean up MR is too hasty.

Secondly, the argument rests on a gratuitous presumption that contamination is the only reason prohibit water sports activities on MR. As a matter of fact, there are many other influencing factors determines where people will have their sports activity, such as the current speed and the depth of the river, the amount and size of fish living there, the availability of entertaining equipments, the services in case of emergencies and so forth. It is highly possible that water currents in MR are very fast and it actually has many turns along the riverbank, which makes it not suitable for any water activities. It might also be the case that as it is located as the rural areas and the long distance from the city center makes it neither convenient to access to, nor easily to get out in case of emergencies. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would greatly undermine the arguer's assertion that there will be more water activities on MS.

Moreover, even assuming that there will be increasing recreation water activities on MS, whether more budges are needed for the publicly owned land along MR needs further discussion. There is no evidence that people coming to MR would have any influence on its nearby areas. Since people come in their leisure time, what should be concerned are the public services related to these activities. If the nearby regions are mainly forests or farms, there is no necessary to make any improvement, bur rather preserving the nature environment. Or perhaps the terrain structures of most lands along MS are not suitable for either manufactory usage of entertaining development. In such cases, there would be no need to increase budget on the public own lands improvements.

The above argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Unless given supporting evidence to indicate the effectiveness of the clean up plan, people's main concern not going to MS or the necessary to improve publicly owned lands along MS, the arguer's assertion cannot be accepted.

t9_jxUID: 2280247

In the above argument, the arguer asserts that with the clean up plans of Mason River (MR), there would be more water activities and demands of budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the river. However, the arguer fails to reveal the real reason of seldom usage of MR, nor does he or she provide solid evidence to substantiate the needs of lands improvement.

First of all, whether the clean up plans would effectively turn MR a suitable place for water sports activities is open to doubt. Without any detail(detailed) information about the strategies used in the cleaning plans, corresponding clearance procedures and durations or the final checking standards, no one can ensure such clean up plans would satisfy the public. At the same time, myriads of other alternatives should be taken into consideration upon the clearance of MR. For example, whether the chemical used during the de-contaminating procedures would stay in the water, whether the existence of such chemicals would cause any irritations or allergic effects to people. The population and diversity of micro-organism in the MR should not be neglected either. Without thorough analysis and evaluation from the above aspects, the conclusion that the responsible agency would clean up MR is too hasty.

Secondly, the argument rests on a gratuitous presumption that contamination is the only reason prohibit water sports activities on MR. As a matter of fact, there are many other influencing factors determines where people will have their sports activity, such as the current speed and the depth of the river, the amount and size of fish living there, the availability of entertaining equipments, the services in case of emergencies and so forth. It is highly possible that water currents in MR are very fast and it actually has many turns along the riverbank, which makes it not suitable for any water activities. It might also be the case that as it is located as the rural areas and the long distance from the city center makes it neither convenient to access to, nor easily to get out in case of emergencies. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would greatly undermine the arguer's assertion that there will be more water activities on MS.

Moreover, even assuming that there will be increasing recreation water activities on MS, whether more budges are needed for the publicly owned land along MR needs further discussion. There is no evidence that people coming to MR would have any influence on its nearby areas. Since people come in their leisure time, what should be concerned are the public services related to these activities. If the nearby regions are mainly forests or farms, there is no necessary to make any improvement, bur rather preserving the nature environment. Or perhaps the terrain structures of most lands along MS are not suitable for either manufactory usage of entertaining development. In such cases, there would be no need to increase budget on the public own lands improvements.

The above argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Unless given supporting evidence to indicate the effectiveness of the clean up plan, people's main concern not going to MS or the necessary to improve publicly owned lands along MS, the arguer's assertion cannot be accepted.

本人水平实在有限,好像没发现表达上面有什么问题,个人觉得是不是plan的执行效果也可以考虑一下?