【challenge yourself小组】第四次作业 argument137 by小火龙33

小火龙33UID：2448175

    The arguer in this newspaper concludes that the Mason City council should increase its budget to improve the public land along the Mason River since the relevant agency announced plans to clean up the river and the use of the river might increase. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the facts that the region’s residents are in favor of water sports according to some surveys. Moreover, the arguer cites the fact that there have been some complaints about the quality of the water to assume that it is because the dirty water that make the residents avoid the river. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.
    To begin with, the fact that there have been some complaints about the quality of the river dose not necessarily prove that the little recreational activity of the Mason River is because it is not clean enough. It is entirely possible that the river is not suitable for recreational activity since the speed of the river is too fast to fit for the water sports or the river is not broad enough to play. Or perhaps the Mason river is on the outskirts of Mason City far away from the area most people live and there have already been some desirable gyms for water sports in the city. Moreover, since we do not know the exact number or ratio of the complaints, it is difficult determining whether the influence of the complaint is serious. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons, the arguer cannot convince me that the little use of Mason river for recreational activity is due to the quality of the river.
      Secondly, the validity of the survey is doubtful. Lacking information about the number of residents surveyed and the specific conditions of them, the cited survey is too vague and oversimplified to support the conclusion that residents in Mason are in favor of water sports. It is entirely possible that the residents participated in the survey are so few that they cannot represent the general situation of the city. Or perhaps the people studied are just like water sports while most residents of the city do not. Failing to provide detailed information, the arguer cannot claim that the region’s residents rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation.
        Thirdly, it is it is unreasonable to draw the conclusion that recreational use of the river will increase from the plans announced by the relevant agency to clean up the river. We cannot anticipate whether the plan will be realized since variables are full of the implementation. Even if the plan will come true, we cannot claims that it will be clean enough for water games. Perhaps the government’s aim of clean the river is just to facilitate the shipping of goods and materials. Even if the water is clean enough, it cannot be assured that people will prefer the Mason river than gyms or other places to do water sports. In short, without accounting for these possibilities, the arguer fails to convince me that recreational use of the river is likely to increase because of the agency’s plan.
       In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvincing as it stands, since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to it. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should give the evidence that most residents in Mason City are in favor of water sports and it is the poor quality of the Mason river that cause the little use of the river for recreational activity. To better assess the conclusion, I would need to whether the plans announced by the agency will successfully realized and whether the river will be clean enough for water sports.


[ 本帖最后由 小火龙33 于 2008-7-30 23:20 编辑 ]

wanghugigiUID：2465119

    The arguer in this newspaper concludes that the Mason City council should increase its budget to improve the public land along the Mason River since the relevant agency announced plans to clean up the river and the use of the river might increase. To support the conclusion, the arguer cites the facts that the region’s residents are in favor of water sports according to some surveys. Moreover, the arguer cites the fact that（换一个吧。。） there have been some complaints about the quality of the water to assume that it is because the dirty water that make the residents avoid the river. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.
    To begin with, the fact that there have been(there were) some complaints about the quality of the river dose not necessarily prove that the little recreational activity of the Mason River is because（,because） it is not clean enough. It is entirely possible that the river is not suitable for recreational activity since the speed of the river is too fast to fit for the water sports or the river is not broad enough to play. Or perhaps the Mason river is on the outskirts of Mason City far away from the area most people live and there have already been some desirable gyms for water sports in the city. Moreover, since we do not know the exact number or ratio of the complaints, it is difficult determining whether the influence of the complaint is serious. In short, without ruling out other possible reasons, the arguer cannot convince me that the little use of Mason river for recreational activity is due to the quality of the river.
      Secondly, the validity of the survey is doubtful. Lacking information about the number of residents surveyed and the specific conditions of them, the cited survey is too vague and oversimplified to support the conclusion that residents in Mason are in favor of water sports. It is entirely possible that the residents participated in the survey are so few that they cannot represent the general situation of the city. Or perhaps the people studied are just like water sports while most residents of the city do not. Failing to provide detailed information, the arguer cannot claim that the region’s residents rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation.
        Thirdly, it is it is unreasonable to draw the conclusion that recreational use of the river will increase from the plans announced by the relevant agency to clean up the river. We cannot anticipate whether the plan will be realized since variables are full of the implementation. Even if the plan will come true, we cannot claims that it will be clean enough for water games. Perhaps the government’s aim of clean the river is just to facilitate the shipping of goods and materials. Even if the water is clean enough, it cannot be assured that people will prefer the Mason river than gyms or other places to do water sports. In short, without accounting for these possibilities, the arguer fails to convince me that recreational use of the river is likely to increase because of the agency’s plan.
       In sum, the arguer’s conclusion is unconvincing as it stands, since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to it. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should give the evidence that most residents in Mason City are in favor of water sports and it is the poor quality of the Mason river that cause the little use of the river for recreational activity. To better assess the conclusion, I would need to whether the plans announced by the agency will successfully realized and whether the river will be clean enough for water sports.
个人觉得第二个错误不是很重要，第三个错误里隐含着两个错误。。
其他的基本上都不错，只是第二段的第一句话让我相当崩溃。。