Argument137

waterpansyUID: 2428068

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: 493          TIME: 00:38:32          DATE: 2007-12-21 17:00:56

In this article, the author cited surveys of Mason City residents show that water sports are the favorite recreations of residents, on the contrary, Mason City residents rarely choose the nearby Mason river for any kind of recreatinal activity mainly because of the quality of Mason river. Close scrutiny reveals that, however, this argument is unconvincing in several critic flaws which together render the argument highly suspectable.

In the beginning of this argument, the author points out that Mason City residents few choose Mason river as recreational activities area. Nevertheless, the author fails to states other factors wihch are also important to face this question, such as, residents rarely active in the nearby Mason river at present, and what is the season of the "present"? If present is winter season, perhaps the river is too cold to use for any kind of activity.

While, considering the surveys' results of the region's residents, the author can not provide any detail about the surveys except water sports has been chosen as a favorite form of recreation, as it stands, we are not informed that how the surveys conducted, and what are the questions of the surveys? And who are respondents of the surveys? If the participants are not from the residents or can not represent the groups of region's residents without statistical process of random selecting, or the questions of the surveys are all about water sports which would intentional lead respondents to such results? Until these interpretations are informed, I can not accept that Mason City residents really favor the water sports.

Even if Mason City residents really like all kind of water sports, and summer-the best season for water sports, is coming now. the statement that residents few choose Mason river as optional spots for water activities for the reason of the poor quality of Mason river is doubtful, since there are complaints about the quality of Mason river, it can not easily to draw such conclusion. Perhaps these complaints focus on the quality of drinking water, which is different from common utility of water for activities, or such complaints are unwarranted before any scientific experimental results conduct. Therefore, the residents rarely use Mason river for the quality of the river is false causal relationship which is not convincing at all, and whether the action of cleaning up the river need to be taken is still unknown.

A final problem involves that the council's measures to clean up Mason river would actually increase the utility of the river, and council should increase its budget for improvements the nearby land of Mason river. No evidence support that Mason river's usage will increasing depended on the quality improvement of river, maybe Mason City residents usually choose their home natatorium as preferred spots for water sports, it is entirely possible.

In conclusion, before any final conclusion is proposed, the author must provide the additional informations indicated above, or the reliability of this argument is open to question.



[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-12-23 00:01 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

In this article, the author cited surveys of Mason City residents show (surveys...showing/surveys...that show 用分句或者独立主格,注意句子完整) that water sports are the favorite recreations of residents, on the contrary, Mason City residents rarely choose the nearby Mason river for any kind of recreatinal activity mainly because of the quality of Mason river.(作者可不止说了这些, 如果你想用一句来说明题目的内容的话, 应该是题目的中心句, 也就是新的提高水质的工程会使娱乐内容上升, 这些是前提, 最后那个才是结论) Close scrutiny reveals that, however, this argument is unconvincing in several critic flaws which together render the argument highly suspectable.(如果没时间把题目概括全的话不妨在开头省点笔墨) In the beginning of this argument, the author points out that Mason City residents few (seldom) choose Mason river as recreational activities area. Nevertheless, the author fails to states other factors wihch are also important to face this question, such as,(就一个用不到such as) residents rarely active in the nearby Mason river at present, and what is the season of the "present"? If present is winter season, perhaps the river is too cold to use for any kind of activity.(这个有点吹毛求疵, 但也不是不能说, 只是因为错误套路跟别的那种他因差太多, 不能套用模版. 你可以写As the speakers states, at PRESENT...However, this statement is vague due to the time limitation. What is "PRESENT"? ...后面记得补充: 如果是夏天的话很可能河岸利用就多了, 这样会使作者整体推断的前提不成立, 也就是河岸并非不受欢迎) While, considering the surveys' results of the region's residents, the author can not provide any detail about the surveys except water sports has been chosen as a favorite form of recreation, (一个意思结束要断句)as it stands, we are not informed that how the surveys conducted, and what are the questions of the surveys? And who are respondents of the surveys? If the participants are not from the residents or can not represent the groups of region's residents without statistical process of random selecting, or the questions of the surveys are all about water sports which would intentional lead respondents to such results? Until these interpretations are informed, I can not accept that Mason City residents really favor the water sports.(看我以前的帖子: https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=620337&highlight=) Even if Mason City residents really like all kind of water sports, and summer-the best season for water sports, is coming now. the statement that residents few choose Mason river as optional spots for water activities for the reason of (due to) the poor quality of Mason river is doubtful, since there are complaints about the quality of Mason river, it can not easily to draw such conclusion (such a conclusion cannot be easily drawn注意副词的用法. 另: what conclusion? 没有context你这个词很模糊). (since后面表达的太模糊了, they是谁也没说清楚. 建议那里改成: since such a conclusion is only based on the complaints about the quality of the river, which is not proved to be correlated with the fact that the bank is seldomly used for recreation.)Perhaps these complaints focus on the quality of drinking water, which is different from common utility of water for activities,(多余) or such complaints are unwarranted before any scientific experimental results conduct(抱怨饮用水质量和抱怨未经证实不是同一个逻辑层面的选择并列, 不能用or. or后面可以跟比如水质不好不能种植物什么的). Therefore, the residents rarely use Mason river for the quality of the river is false causal relationship which is not convincing at all, and whether the action of cleaning up the river need to be taken is still unknown.(最好补充下真正的原因, 比如水流湍急, 河床结构复杂之类的) A final problem involves that the council's measures to clean up Mason river would actually increase the utility of the river, and council should increase its budget for improvements the nearby land of Mason river.(这两句是两个论点, 放一起很难说清楚) No evidence support(s) that Mason river's usage will increasing depended on the quality improvement of river, maybe Mason City residents usually choose their home natatorium as preferred spots for water sports, it is entirely possible.(上一段都说了unkown里, 这里又做假设就是自相矛盾了. 按照让步原理前面一段在说因果不必然, 那里这里就该承认因果了, 也就是质量导致不能娱乐, 那么接下来就要说即使有措施, 质量未必会提高, 即使提高, 人们未必会认识到, 还是会根据习惯选择别的地方运动, 而即使会来运动, 这种措施也可能得不偿失, 比如用在这的预算远不如投资到别的地方合算, 等等) In conclusion, before any final conclusion is proposed, the author must provide the additional informations indicated above, or the reliability of this argument is open to question. 总体看下来有点乱, 一是句子结构的语法问题比较多, 各种词性搭配需要改进, 限于精力不能详细给你改了, 可以的话弄本语法书再看看. 表达上有些词不达意, 我觉得你需要先整理对几种的攻击模版, 练习着用用, 熟练以后再抛开模版, 现在在叙述各种错误时都有些模糊, 到了举例子的时候才看出来你想说什么. 另外最好丰富下它因, 多做点推测, 这样会让攻击更加丰满有力.

fionayanUID: 2556930

Merely depended on a series of unwarranted assumptions and dubious evidence, the author comes to the conclusion that once the Mason River was cleaned up, the Mason city council would need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason river. On the surface, the argument appears to be some what logical, however, in actually, this alone neither provides compelling evidence to make the argument sound nor organizes a logical argument in favor of the conclusion.

To begin with, the validity of this survey is doubtful. On the one hand, the claim does not indicate who conducted the poll, how many people responded and how the poll was conducted. If the survey only represents minority of the local residents because of its insufficient data, for instance, that the respondents are limited into the youth who like water sports, or elders who like fishing, thus, the results would be greatly unconvincing. Even if the conduction of the survey is scientific, when residents rank water sports as their favorite form of recreation, it does mean that citizens have enough time or energy to go to the Mason river swimming or fishing actually. Citizens might prefer to go to some specific swimming pool to swim or go to other more convenient center or go to other rivers to fish or boat.

In addition, the author fails to take other reasons into consideration on the issue why Mason city residents seldom use Mason river for any kind of recreational activities instead of the quality of the water in the river. What if the Mason River is far from the residential area, so that people do not want to waste so much time arriving there. Besides, perhaps the Mason river is not large enough to let people do water sports like boating and swimming, or this river do not have any fish. Accordingly, the author should, in the first place, find out the actual reason for why the Mason river not being used.

Last but not least, though the local government plans to clean up the river, no one can reliably say that this river would never be polluted anymore, so that before any measures being taken into practice, the government should seek out the original pollution source. Otherwise, this river would be tainted again no longer after it being cleaned up. What's more, to avoid wasting fund and energy, Mason City council should not harshly make decision to add budget on the publicly owned land of Wason river, since why residents do not reluctant to do recreational activities there is unclear.

To sum up, the conclusion is too arbitrary to be credible, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the arguer's claim. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have to provide more specific evidence concerning that why residents reluctant to do water sports in the Mason river, and the real pollution source of this river. Before these things being done, it is wise that any process not been conducted.