Argument137 【challenge yourself小组】第四次作业 by infant~

infant~UID：2242949

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: 508          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-7-29 8:52:45

In this editorial, the author recommends that the government of Mason City should increase its budget to public lands along Mason River. To support this recommendation, the author points out that current use of the Mason River for recreational activity is limited, and that residents are constantly complaining about the quality of the water in the river. To further bolster it, the author also reasons that the complaints are responsible for the limited use, and that a cleaning up plan for Mason River will surely change the situation. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several critical problems, which render it unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the author relies on the unsubstantiated assumption that residents seldom use the Mason River due to its unclean water. Although there might be a relationship between complaints and limited use, this relationship is not necessary a causal relationship. It is possible that factors other than the quality of water are the primary reason for residents' choice, such as limited surrounding services, lack of transportation access, unaffordable price for recreation and so forth. In short, without listing other possible factors that might influence the use of the Mason River, the author cannot confidently conclude that low quality water is the real reason for scarce use of the Mason River.

Secondly, the author rests on the assumption that the agency responsible for rivers in the region will effectively fulfill its announcement about cleaning up Mason River, which is unwarranted. Without evidence that the agency has already made a specific study about situations in and around the Mason River and is confident about the construction budget, it is possible that further cleaning up engineering costs will put the agency into deficit, thereby adversely influence or even call a stop to the cleaning up plan.

Thirdly, the author depends on the additional assumption that recreational use of Mason River will surely increase after the cleaning up, and that government fund is necessary for improvements to nearby publicly owned lands. Perhaps the nearby residents prefer their current places for recreational activities, thus rendering the newly built Mason River a last choice. Or perhaps the Mason River is not suitable for swimming, fishing or boating-as the residents ranked as favorite forms of recreation-due to its other qualities despite of cleaned up water. Even if I were to concede that residents would be willing to have fun in the Mason River, the feasibility and necessity of an increase in government budget for nearby lands is unproven.

To sum up, the author fails to adequately support the recommendation that the Mason City should increase budget for publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To strengthen it, the author must provide evidence that local residents refuse to use the Mason River as recreational place due to its low quality of water. To better assess it, more information would be necessary about the agency's plan and budget about cleaning up the Mason River, and a specific market analysis about potential avenue-expenditure of the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.

qilluraUID：2186638

In this editorial, the author recommends that the government of Mason City should increase its budget to public lands along Mason River. To support this recommendation, the author points out that current use of the Mason River for recreational activity is limited, and that residents are constantly(文章里面没这么说哦～) complaining about the quality of the water in the river. To further bolster it, the author also reasons that the complaints are responsible for the limited use, and that a cleaning up plan for Mason River will surely change the situation. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals several critical problems, which render it unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the author relies on the unsubstantiated assumption that residents seldom use the Mason River(for recreational activities) due to its unclean water. Although there might be a relationship between complaints and limited use, this relationship is not necessary a causal relationship. It is possible that factors other than the quality of water are the primary reason for residents' choice, such as limited surrounding services, lack of transportation access, unaffordable price for recreation and so forth. In short, without listing other possible factors that might influence the use of the Mason River, the author cannot confidently conclude that low quality water is the real reason for scarce use of the Mason River.

Secondly, the author rests on the assumption that the agency responsible for rivers in the region will effectively fulfill its announcement about cleaning up Mason River, which is unwarranted. Without evidence that the agency has already made a specific study about situations in and around the Mason River and is confident about the construction budget, it is possible that further cleaning up engineering costs will put the agency into deficit, thereby adversely influence or even call a stop to the cleaning up plan.
(8错～)
Thirdly, the author depends on the additional assumption that recreational use of Mason River will surely increase after the cleaning up, and that government fund is necessary for improvements to nearby publicly owned lands. Perhaps the nearby residents prefer their current places for recreational activities, thus rendering the newly built Mason River a last choice. Or perhaps the Mason River is not suitable for swimming, fishing or boating-as the residents ranked as favorite forms of recreation-due to its other qualities despite of cleaned up water.(这一条应该归入第一个理由)  Even if I were to concede that residents would be willing to have fun in the Mason River, the feasibility and necessity of an increase in government budget for nearby lands is unproven.
(这一段组织的不好。。。笨。。。)
To sum up, the author fails to adequately support the recommendation that the Mason City should increase budget for publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To strengthen it, the author must provide evidence that local residents refuse to use the Mason River as recreational place due to its low quality of water. To better assess it, more information would be necessary about the agency's plan and budget about cleaning up the Mason River, and a specific market analysis about potential avenue-expenditure of the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.

qilluraUID：2186638

语言和逻辑上都么大问题啦～
文章也满长的。。。
第4段的例子举的不好，还是在说人们不会去娱乐，应该转论就算人们去也不一定要增加预算
恩 额。。网络好卡。。。感觉这一篇明显比较飘逸～