arguement137 [冲刺 小组] 第一次作业

binzhixinhuiUID: 2399721

Argument137  第2篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：32分1秒     396 words
2008年7月1日20时2分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this analysis the arguer concludes that the Mason City (MC) needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River. To support this claim, the arguer assumes that after the Mason River (MR) being cleaned, there will be more recreational activities there. The argument is problematic for several reasons.
Firstly, the arguer unfairly assumes that it is the quality of the water in the river which makes residents away from the river. It is entirely possible that residents are too busy in their work resulting no time for recreation activity. Or perhaps the surrounding of MR is not suitable for recreation activities, or the residents there is no longer fond on water sports. If so , then the fact that if the river is cleaner than before, recreational use of the river is likely to increase is dubious at best.
Even if the quality of the water is the cause, the arguer states that an agency responsible for rivers in MC region plans to clean up MR. Do they really can handle this problem, How long will this project takes and When will it finish is still open to doubt. Common sense tells me such kind of campaign always lasting a long time and having a long way to go. It is easy to damage the environment but hard to recover it. Absent additional information about it, the analysis lends no credible support to the conclusion that the quality for water of  MR will be improve.
Even assuming that all above is true, I still cannot see any causal relationship between more use of the river and increasing MC council budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands. There is no evidence that budget for these now is insufficient, and the publicly owned lands along the MR need any improvements. Without exact information about the situation for the public lands along the MR, the arguer cannot persuade me that MR needs more budget for it.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strength the argument the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning why the residents don't want to have recreation activity in the MR. To solidify the argument the ability of the agency to clean up MR should be informed.
提纲：
1 这篇新闻有问题
2 没有给出具体的证据证明大家不去玩了的原因是因为污染，可能是因为没有时间，也可能是因为河流的环境不适合。
3 即便是污染，能否有能力治理好污染？
4 增加公共地皮的经费没有原因。可能已经够了。
5 总结

[ 本帖最后由 binzhixinhui 于 2008-8-1 21:56 编辑 ]

MryanUID: 2281579

In this analysis the arguer concludes that the Mason City (MC) needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River. To support this claim, the arguer assumes that after the Mason River (MR) being cleaned, there will be more recreational activities there. The argument is problematic for several reasons.（开头不错，亮明主题，也没什么语法错误）

Firstly, the arguer unfairly assumes that it is the quality of the water in the river which makes residents away from the river. It is entirely possible that residents are too busy in their work resulting no time for recreation activity（感觉这个假设不太好，一般不会近期突然都忙起来吧？）. Or perhaps the surrounding of MR is not suitable for recreation activities, or the residents there is no longer fond on water sports. If so , then the fact that if the river is cleaner than before, recreational use of the river is likely to increase is dubious at best.（我看这句有些别扭，then的对错不敢把握，用even if ...是不是更好些？而且recreational use of ，recreational是个形容词这样修饰不对吧？）

Even if the quality of the water is the cause, the arguer（换用author应该也行吧，要是一直一个单词会不会太单一） states that an agency responsible for rivers in MC region plans to clean up MR. Do they really can handle this problem, How long will this project takes and When will it finish is still open to doubt. 值得商榷Common sense tells me such kind of campaign always lasting a long time and having a long way to go. It is easy to damage the environment but hard to recover it. Absent additional information about it, the analysis lends no credible support to the conclusion that the quality for water of  MR will be improve.

Even assuming that all above is true, I still cannot see any causal relationship between more use of the river and increasing MC council budget for（the放在这里是不是会好些，强调improvement） improvements to the publicly owned lands. There is no evidence that budget for these now is insufficient, and the publicly owned lands along the MR need any improvements. Without exact information about the situation for the public lands along the MR, the arguer cannot persuade me that MR needs more budget for it.（感觉这个出发点不太好，文章就是认为投资就是为了清污，然后会带来人们的回归，所以说需要投资，但是问题是污水治理了就能让人们回来吗？而不是投资了人们会回来，好像是原因不直接）

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strength the argument the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning why the residents don't want to have recreation activity in the MR. To solidify the argument the ability of the agency to clean up MR should be informed.没看懂（巩固下这篇争论，机构的清理的mr的能力应该是见多识广的？要是这样的话To solidify the argument后边是不是应该有个，号）
提纲：
1 这篇新闻有问题
2 没有给出具体的证据证明大家不去玩了的原因是因为污染，可能是因为没有时间，也可能是因为河流的环境不适合。
3 即便是污染，能否有能力治理好污染？（应该说即便是污染，你把污染治好了他们就回来了？更好些吧）
4 增加公共地皮的经费没有原因。可能已经够了。
5 总结

楼主的格式上有问题，要么每段开头空格，要么段与段之间空行

eaglewatchUID: 2374680

In this analysis the arguer concludes that the Mason City (MC) needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River. To support this claim, the arguer assumes that after the Mason River (MR) being cleaned, there will be more recreational activities there. The argument is problematic for several reasons.
Firstly, the arguer unfairly assumes that it is the quality of the water in the river which makes residents away from the river. It is entirely possible that residents are too busy in their work resulting no time for recreation activity. Or perhaps the surrounding of MR is not suitable for recreation activities, or the residents there is no longer fond on water sports. If so , then the fact that if the river is cleaner than before, recreational use of the river is likely to increase is dubious at best.
Even if the quality of the water is the cause, the arguer states that an agency responsible for rivers in MC region plans to clean up MR. Do they really can handle this problem, How long will this project takes and When will it finish is still open to doubt.(注意大小写） Common sense tells me such kind of campaign always lasting a long time and having a long way to go. It is easy to damage the environment but hard to recover it.（删去it） Absent additional information about it, the analysis lends no credible support to the conclusion that the quality for water of  MR will be improve.
Even assuming that all above is true, I still cannot see any causal relationship between more use of the river and increasing MC council budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands. There is no evidence that budget for these now is insufficient, and the publicly owned lands along the MR need any improvements. Without exact information about the situation for the public lands along the MR, the arguer cannot persuade me that MR needs more budget for it.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strength the argument the arguer would have to provide more evidence concerning why the residents don't want to have recreation activity in the MR. To solidify the argument the ability of the agency to clean up MR should be informed.

语法应该没啥问题的。
argument写的不错，就逻辑层面来言，很清楚，让步体系很好。需要注意的是每段内最后最好有个小总结，就说作者观点垃圾。我个人认为是必要的。限时也还可以，最好限制在25min以内，考场原因~加油！！
PLUS！！注意格式，段间空格，标点后空格