argument137 勇往直前小组第一次作业

zhangjing106UID：2157010

A137
In the argument, the arguer considers that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, because he draws a conclusion that recreational use of the river is going to increase. To support his advice the arguer provides some evidences. However, there are several logical flaws in the arguer's analysis, as discussed below.

First of all, water sports like swimming, fishing and boating are not the same conceptions as using the Mason River. Admittedly, residents could swim fish and boat in the Mason River, if the river is clean enough. But in the modern society, people are used to make water sports in professional locations instead of rivers. People could swim in pool and boat in sea where cleaner water and better sporting circumstance have. Some rich people even have private water sporting area. Because people have seldom used the Mason River for recreational activity for a period of time, people might have used to recreate in other locations as mentioned above. Even if the Mason River has been cleaned enough, few people will go back to making water sports in it.

Second, the arguer's point bases on the supposition that Mason River is sure to be cleaned up after the agency start the cleaning plan. However, it is difficult to make Mason River safe enough to use it for water sports. Moreover, besides for people to make water sports in it there are some other reasons why the agency plans to clean up Mason River. The agency might wish to promote the quality of water resource for drinking, or to meliorate the pollution of Mason River. Different goals have different levels of cleaning. So, it is possible that Mason River still does not suit to make water sports in it after the plan to clean up it has ended.

At last, based on the discussion above, the arguer could not convince me that recreational use of the river is surely to increase, so I do not agree with him that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. In order to support his suggestion better, the arguer should provide more evidences. For example, he could first prove that there are no any other water sports locations in Mason City and Mason River is the only area for water sports. Then he could also provide more details about the agency's plan to prove that the goal of the plan is to cleaning Mason River enough for residents to swimming, fishing and boating in it. Without these kinds of evidence, the arguer's suggestion that the council should increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is logically wrong.

提纲：
205．"Last October the city of Belleville installed high intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. Since high intensity lighting is apparently the most effective way to combat crime, we should install such lighting throughout Amburg. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."
1．B城市安装高亮灯以后降低了损害公物行为的犯罪率，但是有可能是其他的因素造成了该种犯罪行为的降低，而不是安装了高亮灯的缘故。
2．就算安装高亮灯对降低损害公物行为有用，但是没证据证明对降低犯罪率有用，A城市有可能损害公物行为的犯罪数量很少，那么安装高亮灯也不能降低犯罪率。
3．就算犯罪率降低了，城市的经济也有可能不会重新繁荣。因为有很多其他的因素会影响到城市的经济，经济不景气等。

34.Milk and dairy products are rich in vitamin D and calcium, substances essential for building and maintaining bones. Many people therefore believe that a diet rich in dairy products can help prevent osteoporosis, a disease in which the bones weaken significantly with age and that is linked to both environmental and genetic factors. But a long-term study of a large number of people has found that those who have consistently consumed dairy products throughout the years of the study have a higher rate of bone fractures than any other participants in the study. Since bone fractures are a symptom of osteoporosis, this study result shows that a diet rich in dairy products may actually increase, rather than decrease, the risk of osteoporosis.
1．研究的可信度。需要提供该项研究的其他细节。
2．骨折和骨质酥松症没有必然的联系。经常食用奶制品的人有可能是小孩和老人，这一类人有可能在运动中和生活中受到意外伤害而导致骨折。
3．即使骨质酥松症和骨折有关系，但是有可能是其他的原因导致了骨质酥松症，而不是食用奶制品。

25"Two years ago, the town of Ocean View built a new municipal golf course and resort hotel. During the past two years, tourism in Ocean View has increased, new businesses have opened there, and Ocean View's tax revenues have risen by 30 percent. The best way to improve Hopewell's economy, and generate additional tax revenues, is to build a golf course and resort hotel similar to those in Ocean View."
1.没有足够的证据表明在Hopewell修建地方性的高尔夫球场和度假胜地会和Ocean View一样收到更高的税收和促进经济
2.作者没有提供详细的说明Ocean View的经济提高是因为修建了市高尔夫球场以及度假酒店的结果
3.作者还忽略了其他因素：作者没有提供Hopewell居民的信息，可能当地的风俗习惯排斥旅游；此外，作者没有考虑其他更好的提升经济的方法，可能有更好的方式，比如厂办企业等来提高当地经济

9. "Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by thirty percent. Potential employers apparently believe the grades at Omega are inflated; this would explain why Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should now terminate student evaluation of professors."


1．没有提供证据证明评教是O校的教授给予学生更高分数的原因。
2．没有证据证明雇主认为成绩贬值了。
3．就算是雇主认为成绩贬值了，也没有证据证明是因此而导致O校的毕业生找工作时很困难，有可能是因为教学成果没有A校好，或者容易找工作的专业较少。

kattystarUID：2315333

In the argument, the arguer considers that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, because he draws a conclusion that recreational use of the river is going to increase. To support his advice the arguer provides some evidences. However, there are several logical flaws in the arguer's analysis, as discussed below.

First of all, water sports like swimming, fishing and boating are not the same conceptions as using the Mason River.(感觉跟下面没关系）Admittedly, residents could swim(，) fish and boat in the Mason River, if the river is clean enough. But in the modern society, people are(getting) used to make(用do好点？） water sports in professional locations instead of rivers. People could swim in pool and boat in sea wherehave cleaner water and better sporting circumstance . Some rich people even have private water sporting areas. Because people have seldom used the Mason River for recreational activity for a period of time, people might have used to recreate in other locations as mentioned above. Even if the Mason River has been cleaned enough, few people will go back to making water sports in it.

Second, the arguer's point based on the supposition that Mason River is sure to be cleaned up after the agency starts to active the cleaning plan. However, it is difficult to make Mason River safe enough to be used （it不要） for water sports. Moreover, besides for people to make water sports in it there are some other reasons why the agency plans to clean up Mason River. The agency might wish to promote the quality of water resource for drinking, or to meliorate the pollution of Mason River. Different goals have different levels of cleaning. So, it is possible that Mason River still does not suit to make water sports in it after the plan to clean up it has ended.

At last, based on the discussion above, the arguer could not convince me that recreational use of the river is surely to increase, so I do not agree with him that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. In order to support his suggestion better, the arguer should provide more evidences. For example, he could first prove that there are no any other water sports locations in Mason City and Mason River is the only area for water sports. Then he could also provide more details about the agency's plan to prove that the goal of the plan is to cleaning Mason River enough for residents to swimming, fishing and boating in it. Without these kinds of evidence, the arguer's suggestion that the council should increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is logically wrong.
结构不错哦，就是有点我觉得不妥的地方，也可能不太对。不过我尽力啦：）

woodmanUID：161906

In theargument, the arguer considers that the Mason Citycouncil should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned landsalong the Mason River, because he draws a conclusionthat recreational use of the river is going to increase. To support his advicethe arguer provides some evidences. However, there are several logical flaws inthe arguer's analysis, as discussed below.

First of all, water sports like swimming, fishing and boating are not the sameconceptions as using the Mason River（for recreation）. Admittedly, residentscould swim fish and boat in the Mason River, if the river isclean enough. But in the modern society, people are used to make water sportsin professional locations instead of rivers. People could swim in pool and boatin sea where cleaner water and better sporting circumstance have（are provided）. Some rich people even have private watersporting area. Because people have seldom used the Mason Riverfor recreational activity for a period of time, people might have used torecreate in other locations as mentioned above. Even if the Mason Riverhas been cleaned enough, few people will go back to making water sports in it.

Second, the arguer's point bases on the supposition that Mason Riveris sure to be cleaned up after the agency start the cleaning plan. However, itis difficult to make Mason River safe enough to useit for water sports. Moreover, besides for people to make water sports in itthere are some other reasons why the agency plans to clean up Mason River.The agency might wish to promote the quality of water resource for drinking, orto meliorate the pollution of Mason River. Different goalshave different levels of cleaning. So, it is possible that Mason River stilldoes not suit to make water sports in it after the plan to clean up it hasended.感觉这一段太发散了，呵呵
At last, based on the discussion above, the arguer could not convince me thatrecreational use of the river is surely to increase, so I do not agree with himthat the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvementsto the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. In order to support hissuggestion better, the arguer should provide more evidences. For example, hecould first prove that there are no any other water sports locations in Mason City and Mason River is the only areafor water sports. Then he could also provide more details about the agency'splan to prove that the goal of the plan is to cleaning Mason Riverenough for residents to swimming, fishing and boating in it. Without thesekinds of evidence, the arguer's suggestion that the council should increase thebudget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason Riveris logically wrong.

表达流畅，但建议还是写3点比较好，然后结尾精简一点，看起来漂亮些，可以把第3段与第2段调换一下位置，逻辑关系会清晰些。

至于提纲，我的和你的差不多，呵呵。

nornsUID：2325187

A137
In the argument, the arguer considers that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, because he draws a conclusion that recreational use of the river is going to increase. To support his advice the arguer provides some evidences. However, there are several logical flaws in the arguer's analysis, as discussed below.

First of all, water sports like swimming, fishing and boating are not the same conceptions as using the Mason River. (有问题)Admittedly, residents could swim fish and boat in the Mason River, if the river is clean enough. But in the modern society, people are used to make water sports in professional locations instead of rivers. People could swim in pool and boat in sea where cleaner water and better sporting circumstance have. Some rich people even have private water sporting area. Because people have seldom used the Mason River for recreational activity for a period of time, people might have used to recreate in other locations as mentioned above. Even if the Mason River has been cleaned enough, few people will go back to making water sports in it.

Second, the arguer's point bases on the supposition that Mason River is sure to be cleaned up after the agency start the cleaning plan. However, it is difficult to make Mason River safe enough to use it for water sports. （感觉这里展开点好～）Moreover, besides for people to make water sports in it there are some other reasons why the agency plans to clean up Mason River. The agency might wish to promote the quality of water resource for drinking, or to meliorate the pollution of Mason River. Different goals have different levels of cleaning. So, it is possible that Mason River still does not suit to make water sports in it after the plan to clean up it has ended.

At last, based on the discussion above, the arguer could not convince me that recreational use of the river is surely to increase, so I do not agree with him that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. In order to support his suggestion better, the arguer should provide more evidences. For example, he could first prove that there are no any other water sports locations in Mason City and Mason River is the only area for water sports. Then he could also provide more details about the agency's plan to prove that the goal of the plan is to cleaning Mason River enough for residents to swimming, fishing and boating in it. Without these kinds of evidence, the arguer's suggestion that the council should increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is logically wrong.

逻辑错误感觉写三个为好，而且即使写两个也应该写最致命的错误