Argument137 by Andier. 让我考试抽到这篇吧~~~

AndierUID: 2302600

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 655          TIME: 0:28:15          DATE: 2007-7-16



Based on the plan of the agency responsible for rivers to clean up Mason River, the arguer concludes that the river would be popular for recreational use and hence Manson City council need to increase its budget. However, from the information provided by the arguer, this conclusion is unconvincing. A close scrutiny would reveals some fallacies concerning the reasoning of the arguer, and moreover, some tenable conclusion derived from shaky data.

As a premise, the arguer based the entire argument on the hypothesis that pollution is the reason why people abandon Manson River for any recreational activity. However, this assumption is precipitous, since there could be other reasons that are responsible for the problems mentioned above. For an example, it is highly possible that Manson River is remote, far from the downtown area, and thus citizens are less likely to spend half a day driving when they want to engage water sports. In the same way, there could be some competitive water theme park somewhere else in the city, taking over most of the residents would rank water sports as favorite. Apart from the previous scenarios, it is likely that the climate in Manson City is not well enough for water sports. Maybe the average temperature is below 10, and the summer is short. In such a case, even most residents are fond of water sports, they have to go to other warmer places on holiday instead of using local water body. Before eliminating or even considering such scenarios, the validity of the argument could be utterly undermined, since the arguer is contending with a wrong fact.

Even we concede that poor quality of the water in the Manson River is the only reason that impede recreation use, there is no solid evidence showing that the situation will readily change in the near future. Even if the agency has announced plans to clean up the river, letting alone whether and when they would actually implement such plans, there is no information indicating the effect of their previous work. It is likely that they had similar plans earlier. If so, their plan seems to be ineffective in the past, and there is no reason to expect their future plan would make any substantial difference. And moreover, even if the pollution, the problem left for the river, is effectively handled, it residents will not come automatically. Advertisement is needed to gain the popularity among citizens. And since the river has been infamous for its poor water quality, such movement would be expected to meet with some difficulties. To convince us that the river will be recognized as a recreational place, the arguer have to assure that the public would identify the river as an acceptable place after the problematic plan to clean the river.

Finally, if one starts by examining the proposition for more budgets for improvements the lands along the river, it would be clear that such a requirement has little essential meaning with respect to the issue at discussion. If, luckily, the river has gained its identification and popularity as a recreational place, why should those lands be improved? One the one hand, those lands could be irrelevant to people recreational use. On the other hand, those lands could be in a relatively good condition that requires little improvement even when they are used as part of the recreational place. The arguer should provide specific reasons for the improvement of the lands and make it clear that what advantages will it bring.

In sum, the argument lacks credibility. And to consolidate the conclusion, the arguer should offer more accurate information concerning the unpopularity of the river as a recreational place, and more convincing reasons to assure us that the river will be popular after the cleaning plan. Furthermore, the proposition for budget should be explained in details. Before implementing such works, the conclusion cannot be drawn from conjecture and infirm evidence explained with a limited sense.

AndierUID: 2302600

大家来拍吧~~~~~~

咱们还可以互拍~。。

lyseraphUID: 2342989

还真强 写那么点字 文笔似乎也不错

imagic80UID: 2342633

Argument137 by Andier. 让我考试抽到这篇吧~~~
TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 655 TIME: 0:28:15 DATE: 2007-7-16
Based on the plan of the agency responsible for rivers to clean up Mason River, the arguer concludes that the river would be popular for recreational use and hence Manson City council need to increase its budget. However, from the information provided by the arguer, this conclusion is unconvincing. A close scrutiny would reveals some fallacies concerning the reasoning of the arguer, and moreover, some tenable conclusion derived from shaky data. As a premise, the arguer based the entire argument on the hypothesis that pollution is the[only] reason why people abandon Manson River for any recreational activity. However, this assumption is precipitous[?], since there could be other reasons that are responsible for the problems mentioned above. For an example, it is highly possible that Manson River is remote, far from the downtown area, and thus citizens are less likely to spend half a day driving when they want to engage water sports. In the same way, there could be some competitive water theme park somewhere else in the city, taking over most of the residents would rank water sports as favorite. Apart from the previous scenarios, it is likely that the climate in Manson City is not well enough for water sports. Maybe the average temperature is below 10, and the summer is short. In such a case, even most residents are fond of water sports, they have to go to other warmer places on holiday instead of using local water body. Before eliminating or even considering such scenarios, the validity of the argument could be utterly undermined, since the arguer is contending with a wrong fact.[For example.你经常用到，可是我没有看到有人用过for an example.]
Even we concede that poor quality of the water in the Manson River is the only reason that impede recreation use, there is no solid evidence showing that the situation will readily change in the near future. Even if the agency has announced plans to clean up the river, letting alone whether and when they would actually implement such plans, there is no information indicating the effect of their previous work. It is likely that they had similar plans earlier. If so, their plan seems to be ineffective in the past, and there is no reason to expect their future plan would make any substantial difference. And moreover, even if the pollution, the problem left for the river, is effectively handled, it residents will not come automatically. Advertisement is needed to gain the popularity among citizens. And since the river has been infamous for its poor water quality, such movement would be expected to meet with some difficulties. To convince us that the river will be recognized as a recreational place, the arguer have to assure that the public would identify the river as an acceptable place after the problematic plan to clean the river.
Finally, if one starts by examining the proposition for more budgets for improvements the lands along the river, it would be clear that such a requirement has little essential meaning with respect to the issue at discussion. If, luckily, the river has gained its identification and popularity as a recreational place, why should those lands be improved? One the one hand, those lands could be irrelevant to people recreational use. On the other hand, those lands could be in a relatively good condition that requires little improvement even when they are used as part of the recreational place. The arguer should provide specific reasons for the improvement of the lands and make it clear that what advantages will it bring. In sum, the argument lacks credibility. And to consolidate the conclusion, the arguer should offer more accurate information concerning the unpopularity of the river as a recreational place, and more convincing reasons to assure us that the river will be popular after the cleaning plan. Furthermore, the proposition for budget should be explained in details. Before implementing such works, the conclusion cannot be drawn from conjecture and infirm evidence explained with a limited sense. Argument 已经写的很好了。无论是逻辑还是语言。建议你看看一篇觉【argument就应该这样写】的帖子，看看他所谓的主逻辑错误和次逻辑错误的攻击顺序问题。挺好的。

[ 本帖最后由 imagic80 于 2007-7-19 21:16 编辑 ]

AndierUID: 2302600

正在看~ 试图学习其中的方法~ 谢谢指点~~~~

加油~~~~~~

yaoqian0424UID: 2323517

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 655          TIME: 0:28:15          DATE: 2007-7-16

Based on the plan of the agency responsible for rivers to clean up Mason River, the arguer concludes that the river would be popular for recreational use and hence Manson City council need to increase its budget在哪方面的预算还是应该提一下.  However, from the information provided by the arguer, this conclusion is unconvincing. A close scrutiny would reveals some fallacies concerning the reasoning of the arguer, and moreover, some tenable？？ conclusion derived from shaky data.可以适当精简一点，有些重复
As a premise, the arguer based the entire argument on the hypothesis that pollution is the reason why people abandon Manson River for any recreational activity. However, this assumption is precipitous, since there could be other reasons that are responsible for the problems mentioned above. For an example, it is highly possible that Manson River is remote, far from the downtown are跟我犯了一样的错误，文中分明提到是nearby, and thus citizens are less likely to spend half a day driving when they want to engage in water sports. In the same way, there could be some competitive water theme park somewhere else in the city, taking over most of the residents would是不是who rank water sports as favorite. Apart from the previous scenarios, it is likely that the climate in Manson City is not well enough for water sports. Maybe the average temperature is below 10, and the summer is short. In such a case, even most residents are fond of water sports, they have to go to other warmer places on holiday instead of using local water body. Before eliminating or even considering such scenarios, the validity of the argument could be utterly undermined, since the arguer is contending with a wrong fact.
这段比较有条理，结构清晰

Even we concede that poor quality of the water in the Manson River is the only reason that impede recreation use, there is no solid evidence showing that the situation will readily change in the near future. Even if the agency has announced plans to clean up the river, letting alone 更不用说，用在这里不是很恰当，without considering试试 whether and when they would actually implement such plans, there is no information indicating the effect of their previous去掉吧，反正目的是看他的工作效率，不管过去现在 work. It is likely that they had similar plans earlier. If so, their plan seems to be ineffective in the past, and there is no reason to expect their future plan would make any substantial difference. And moreover, even if the pollution, the problem left for the river, is effectively handled, it ？residents will not come automatically. Advertisement is needed to gain the popularity among citizens. And since the river has been infamous for its poor water quality, such movement would be expected to meet with some difficulties. To convince us that the river will be recognized as a recreational place, the arguer have to assure that the public would identify the river as an acceptable place after the problematic plan和这句话的意思矛盾了，改下吧 to clean the river.
这段的结尾句不是太好，be recognize 和identify……as 的意思相近，就把convince us that 后的内容改成人们回去河里游泳好了

Finally, if one starts by examining the proposition for more budgets for improvements the lands along the river, it would be clear that such a requirement has little essential meaning with respect to the issue at discussion. TS有点问题，预算的意义是要经过分析的出来的，而不是显而易见的，否则下面的讨论就没有意义了，说怀疑他的意义就行了If, luckily, the river has gained its identification and popularity as a recreational place, why should those lands be improved? One the one hand, those lands could be irrelevant to people recreational use. On the other hand, those lands could be in a relatively good condition that requires little improvement even when they are used as part of the recreational place. The arguer should provide specific reasons for the improvement of the lands and make it clear that what advantages will it bring.

In sum, the argument lacks credibility. And to consolidate the conclusion, the arguer should offer more accurate information concerning the unpopularity of the river as a recreational place, and more convincing reasons to assure us that the river will be popular after the cleaning plan. Furthermore, the proposition for budget should be explained in details. Before implementing such works, the conclusion cannot be drawn from conjecture and infirm evidence explained with a limited sense.最后一句有点罗嗦，因为结尾段开头已经说了不可信
文中很多好词，值得学习，蠢蠢改动，仅供参考