- 最后登录
- 2011-11-25
- 在线时间
- 34 小时
- 寄托币
- 2061
- 声望
- 15
- 注册时间
- 2007-4-8
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 帖子
- 12
- 精华
- 1
- 积分
- 1897
- UID
- 2325187
![Rank: 5](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level3.gif) ![Rank: 5](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level1.gif)
- 声望
- 15
- 寄托币
- 2061
- 注册时间
- 2007-4-8
- 精华
- 1
- 帖子
- 12
|
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 alo
ng the
Mason River."
当前,Mason市很少利用附近的Mason河来进行娱乐活动,尽管对该地区居民的几次调查一直指出他们把水上运动(游泳、垂钓和划船)作为他们最喜欢的娱乐形式。由于曾经存在对于这条河水质的投诉,居民一定是因为他们认为河水不够干净才不在这里活动。但这种情况就会改变了:我们地区负责河流管理的部门公布了澄清Mason河的计划。因此,河流的娱乐用途很可能将会增加,因而Mason市的市委有必要增加用于改善Mason河沿岸公共土地的预算。
The argument get into the conclusion that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, since the recreational use of the river will increase as a result of the river cleaning plan of the agency responsible for rivers in the region. This line of reasoning is unconvincing for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, the agency's plan doesn’t necessarily guarantee that the Mason River can be clean up. Maybe the plan itself is not well designed so that it cannot get the expected result; or maybe people who carry out the plan are not well-prepared for the task. Even if all these are all well-prepared, it is also entire possible that the plan costs too much that it has to be delayed, In general, without the convincible evidence and detailed survey on this problem, we can not simply assert that the plan will works well and makes the water clean.
Secondly, even if the assumptions above are true, we cannot claim that when Mason River is clean up, the recreational use will necessarily rise. There are many possibilities lead to such situation. For example, maybe when the Mason River is clean, people have developed some new ways for pleasure. What’s more,it’s quite possible that there is another place that are suitable for recreational activities, which, compared with the Mason River, are far more beautiful in environment and continent in transports. Since the author failed to give information on these respects, this deduction is not quite convincible.
Finally, and also most fatally, even if all that have mentioned above are assumed with no errors, the rise of recreational use is not a convincible reason for the improvements of its budget. The author offers no evidence to demonstrate the relationships between the two-there is no descriptions and reports about the present state of the publicly owned lands. If the public owned lands are in states good enough for recreational activities, there is no need for the improvements even if the number of residents coming for fun rises.
To sum up, the argument is weak by several aspects as discussed above. To strength it, the arguer should provide details to support that if the number of residents who come to the Mason River for fun rises, the budget should be improved. To better bolster it, the arguer should offer evidence showing that if the river is clean up, the number of residents who come to the Mason River for fun will increase. Besides, the arguer must also prove that increase of the budget to the improvement to publicly owned lands along the Mason River is wealthy. |
|