argument137 [Jet小组】第十一次作业

benjamin07UID: 2310909

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: 592          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-26

In this argument, the arguer claims that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase, and recommends that the Mason City council has to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites that, although residents of Mason City seldom use the Mason River for any kind of recreational activity because they think the river is not clean enough, the agency which is responsible for the rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. However, a careful examination would reveal how groundless the argument would be.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide any concrete plans that the agency responsible for the rivers in the region is able to clean up the Mason River. The arguer cites the fact that Mason City residents now seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, including swimming, fishing, and boating, however, no evidence has been provided that the river can be treated well by the agency responsible for the river. The arguer must show the detailed plans, which are supposed to clean up the river. What is more, there must be a report to show that the water in the river does not do harm to human beings when they entertain in the river. Without providing this information, the arguer can not safely claim that the river can be treated well by the agency.

In addition, this argument is base on the unfounded assumption that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. No evidence has been provided to show the tread that residents would like to use the river again after the treatment of the river. The arguer has to conduct a survey to ask the residents whether they would like to use the river for any activity or not. It is possible that the residents would not use the river even granted that the river could be cleaned up by the agency, it is maybe the reason that they are afraid of the potential harm that the water in the river could do to them.

Finally, the assumption that the Mason City council has to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is open to doubt. It is entirely possible that the publicly owned lands have been protected and maintained well even though the river has been polluted; Or it is perhaps that the Manson City council right now is under financial trouble; Or it is perhaps that the other agencies would like to provide money to maintain and improve the quality of the publicly owned lands. Without rule out these possibilities, it is unfair for the arguer to make the decision that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.

In conclusion, this argument suffers from several critical flaws mentioned above analysis. To strengthen the argument, the arguer has to provide further information concerning details of the plans which is proposed by the agency. In addition, what is more important is that the arguer has to provide evidence to show the residents of the Mason City would like to use the river again after the treatment of the river and the reasons that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. Without providing this information, I would keep highly doubt about the conclusion of the argument.

taler_renUID: 2380158

argument137 [Jet小组】第十一次作业

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: 592          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-26

In this argument, the arguer claims that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase, and recommends that the Mason City council has to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites that, although residents of Mason City seldom use the Mason River for any kind of recreational activity because they think the river is not clean enough, the agency which is responsible for the rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. However, a careful examination would reveal how groundless the argument would be.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide any concrete plans that the agency responsible for the rivers in the region is able to clean up the Mason River. The arguer cites the fact that Mason City residents now seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, including swimming, fishing, and boating, however, no evidence has been provided that the river can be treated well by the agency responsible for the river.[觉得把错误说了两遍，有点冗长] The arguer must show the detailed plans, which are supposed to clean up the river. [what is the detailed plan?]What is more, there must be a report to show that the water in the river does not do harm to human beings when they entertain in the river. Without providing this information, the arguer can not safely claim that the river can be treated well by the agency.

In addition, this argument is based on the unfounded assumption that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. No evidence has been provided to show the trend that residents would like to use the river again after the treatment of the river. The arguer has to conduct a survey to ask the residents whether they would like to use the river for any activity or not. It is possible that the residents would not use the river even granted that the river could be cleaned up by the agency, it is maybe the reason that they are afraid of the potential harm that the water in the river could do to them.[值得学习，写得很好，呵呵]

Finally, the assumption that the Mason City council has to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is open to doubt. It is entirely possible that the publicly owned lands have been protected and maintained well even though the river has been polluted[increase the budget 的原因是因为increase recreational use 吧，而不是the river polluted]; Or it is perhaps that the Manson City council right now is under financial trouble; Or it is perhaps that the other agencies would like to provide money to maintain and improve the quality of the publicly owned lands[why they would like to do so]. Without ruling out these possibilities, it is unfair for the arguer to make the decision[感觉应该是recommend吧，他不能决定吧] that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.

In conclusion, this argument suffers from several critical flaws mentioned above analysis. To strengthen the argument, the arguer has to provide further information concerning details of the plans which is proposed by the agency. In addition, what is more important is that the arguer has to provide evidence to show the residents of the Mason City would like to use the river again after the treatment of the river and the reasons that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. Without providing this information, I would keep highly doubt about the conclusion of the argument.

牛人啊，短时间内可以完成这么一篇大作，感觉说理还是很充分的，就是直呈错误显得太长了吧，不过我是个新手，看了大家的文章感觉好像都喜欢这样。

benjamin07UID: 2310909

谢谢修改.

dreamstringUID: 2389201

In this argument, the arguer claims that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase, and recommends that the Mason City council has to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites that, although residents of Mason City seldom use the Mason River for any kind of recreational activity because they think the river is not clean enough, the agency which is responsible for the rivers in our(不妥) region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. However, a careful examination would reveal how groundless the argument would be.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide any concrete plans that the agency responsible for the rivers in the region is able to clean up the Mason River. The arguer cites the fact that Mason City residents now seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, including swimming, fishing, and boating, (这句有点多余，和后面的话没什么联系)however, no evidence has been provided that the river can be treated well by the agency responsible for the river. The arguer must show the detailed plans, which are supposed to clean up the river. What is more, there must be a report to show that the water in the river does not do harm to human beings when they entertain in the river.(这个和agency能治理好水有什么关系？) Without providing this information, the arguer can not safely claim that the river can be treated well by the agency.

In addition, this argument is base(based) on the unfounded assumption that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. No evidence has been provided to show the tread that residents would like to use the river again after the treatment of the river. The arguer has to conduct a survey to ask the residents whether they would like to use the river for any activity or not. It is possible that the residents would not use the river even granted that the river could be cleaned up by the agency, it is maybe the reason that they are afraid of the potential harm that the water in the river could do to them.

Finally, the assumption that the Mason City council has to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is open to doubt. It is entirely possible that the publicly owned lands have been protected and maintained well even though the river has been polluted; Or it is perhaps that the Manson City council right now is under financial trouble; Or it is perhaps that the other agencies would like to provide money to maintain and improve the quality of the publicly owned lands. Without rule out these possibilities, it is unfair for the arguer to make the decision that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.

In conclusion, this argument suffers from several critical flaws mentioned above analysis. To strengthen the argument, the arguer has to provide further information concerning details of the plans which is proposed by the agency. In addition, what is more important is that the arguer has to provide evidence to show the residents of the Mason City would like to use the river again after the treatment of the river and the reasons that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. Without providing this information, I would keep highly doubt about the conclusion of the argument.