Argument137【0806G desperado小组】第十二次作业by坐照

wangyu0920UID: 199396

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: 516         DATE: 2007-12-21 20:37:07

1.         清洁河流的计划未必能在短期内，得到很好地执行，确实能够改善水质
2.         即使水质能改善，人没也未必会到水上娱乐（调查不可信，过去人们不娱乐的原因没有说明）
3.         即使人们来娱乐，预算也未必需要增加

In this argument, the arguer recommends that the Mason City council should increase its budget for public lands along the Mason River. To support this recommendation, the arguer assumes that the recreational use of the river would increase because the agency responsible for rivers announced plans to clean up the river. According to some surveys, the arguer also assumes that the residents prefer water sports to other forms of recreation. However, I find the evidence is insufficient and hence does not lend solid support to what the arguer asserts.

To begin with, without more information about the plans announced by the agency, we can not accept the conclusion that the Mason River would be clean. One the one hand, the agency did not give out the specific date when the plan would be carried out. It is entirely possible that it would not start until several years later. Or perhaps it would be put off because of some uncertain factors. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the plan can be executed well. Perhaps some unpredictable pollutants would keep on polluting the river; hence, the river would not be clean even the agency try to improve the water quality.

Moreover, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the increase of recreation activity and the improvement of the water quality of Mason River. Although the residents have complaint about the water quality, there is no reliable evidence to prove that it was the reason why the residents did not use the river for recreation.

In addition, even though the water quality can lead to a decrease of recreation, we can not accept the arguer's conclusion because the result of the surveys which the arguer cites is too vague to be informative. Perhaps the residents would choose other kinds of recreational activities for pleasure since the result of the surveys lacks credibility when the arguer does not provide any information about the respondents to make it statistically reliable. Further more, it is entirely possible that people would not do any recreational activities because they were too busy to relax themselves.

Last but not least, even though the residents will use the river for recreational activity, the arguer’s claim that the council should increase its budget to improve the public lands along the river is poorly supported. It is possible that the facilities on the public lands are well enough and the residents are so satisfied with the current condition that it is unnecessary to pay more money for any improvement.

In conclusion, this argument is not well supported as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer has to provide more evidence to prove that (1) the plan that intend to clean up the river will be carried out soon and well executed to make sure the water quality will be truly improved (2) the residents will use the river for recreational activity as long as the river become clean (3) the public owned lands along the river are indeed in a poor condition that need more money to get improved

summer330UID: 2175256

In this argument, the arguer recommends that the Mason City council should increase its budget for public lands along the Mason River. To support this recommendation, the arguer assumes that the recreational use of the river would increase because the agency responsible for rivers announced plans to clean up the river. According to some surveys, the arguer also assumes that the residents prefer water sports to other forms of recreation. However, I find the evidence is insufficient and hence does not lend solid support to what the arguer asserts. To begin with, without more information about the plans announced by the agency, we can not accept the conclusion that the Mason River would be clean. One the one hand, the agency did not give out the specific date when the plan would be carried out. It is entirely possible that it would not start until several years later. Or perhaps it would be put off because of some uncertain factors. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the plan can be executed well. Perhaps some unpredictable pollutants would keep on polluting the river; hence, the river would not be clean even the agency try to improve the water quality. Moreover, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the increase of recreation activity and the improvement of the water quality of Mason River. Although the residents have complaint about the water quality, there is no reliable evidence to prove that it was the reason why the residents did not use the river for recreation. In addition, even though the water quality can lead to a decrease of recreation, we can not accept the arguer's conclusion because the result of the surveys which the arguer cites is too vague to be informative. Perhaps the residents would choose other kinds of recreational activities for pleasure since the result of the surveys lacks credibility when the arguer does not provide any information about the respondents to make it statistically reliable. Further more, it is entirely possible that people would not do any recreational activities because they were too busy to relax themselves. Last but not least, even though the residents will use the river for recreational activity, the arguer’s claim that the council should increase its budget to improve the public lands along the river is poorly supported. It is possible that the facilities on the public lands are well enough and the residents are so satisfied with the current condition that it is unnecessary to pay more money for any improvement. In conclusion, this argument is not well supported as it stands. To make it more convincing, the arguer has to provide more evidence to prove that (1) the plan that intend to clean up the river will be carried out soon and well executed to make sure the water quality will be truly improved (2) the residents will use the river for recreational activity as long as the river become clean (3) the public owned lands along the river are indeed in a poor condition that need more money to get improved

写的像范文,没什么改了.