argument137冲刺小组第一次作业

lishuang0313UID: 2216736

6#
Argument 137
The argument fails due to several flaws in logic. First, the arguer assumes that the plans which are designed to clear up the river will be executed efficiently. Second, the arguer also makes a conclusion that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need to be improved. What’s more, there is one fallacious cause-and-effect relationship supported in the argument.

First of all, the author presumptuous assumes that the quality of Mason River is the only reason leading to the local residents would not like to take part in water sports as a kind of recreational activity in this river.  Ignoring several other possible reasons. Perhaps the climate of the region is rainy and windy, so it is not fit for residents who are fond of outdoor water sports, such as boating, and fishing, to enjoy their time in this river. So, some amateurs might prefer to go to other places nearby their region which may offer them comfortable weather condition to do water sports. What’s more, maybe the terrain of this river is too dangerous to do any water sport since the speed of the current is extremely fast.

Second, there is also an unreliable assumption that the plans announced by the agency can clean up this river efficiently and thoroughly. The author provides no information about the level and type of the pollution. Maybe the river is contaminated seriously by waste water which is discharged by a nearby large-scale chemical factory for many years. Therefore, the programs should not only include how to take measures to clean up the water, but also contain that the relevant department might forbid waste water which is drained into this river. In addition, if the pollution is considerably severe, so it might take a long time, even several years to solve the contaminative problem. However, at that time, the local residents maybe favor other kind of recreational activity, such as jogging, skiing instead of water sports.

Further more, even if the quality of the water is the only reason that residents are reluctant to use this river for any recreational activity and it can be cleaned up effectively and quickly, the writer makes an arbitrarily assumption that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need to be improved since the recreational use of river maybe increase. Firstly, the author does not offer us any elaborate condition about the local region. Perhaps the recreational facilities in the publicly owned lands near the river are already significantly perfect and the scenery is considerably beautiful. Thus, it is not necessary for the government to invest more money to do some improvements. What’s more, the writer just tells us that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase, which is only a speculation. So, we do not know whether there will be a large amount of local residents like to use this public lands to do recreational activities in the future. Therefore, without any statistical data about the number of those people, the conclusion of increasing budget for improvement has no meaning.

To strengthen the argument and conclusion, the writer should present more specific and reliable information and statistics about the environment of the region, especially the Mason River and give the appropriate evidence to support these assumptions.

catlovedogUID: 2513428

Argument 137
The argument fails（最好后面加点）due to several flaws in logic. First, the arguer assumes that the plans which are designed to clear up the river will be executed efficiently. Second, the arguer also makes a conclusion that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need to be improved. What’s more, there is one fallacious cause-and-effect relationship supported in the argument.

First of all, the author presumptuous assumes that the quality of Mason River is the only reason leading to the local residents would not like to take part in water sports as a kind of recreational activity in this river.（不是很通）  Ignoring several other possible reasons. Perhaps the climate of the region is rainy and windy, so it is not fit for residents who are fond of outdoor water sports, such as boating, and fishing, to enjoy their time in this river. So, some amateurs might prefer to go to other places nearby their region which may offer them comfortable weather condition to do water sports. What’s more, maybe the terrain of this river is too dangerous to do any water sport since the speed of the current is extremely fast.

Second, there is also an unreliable assumption that the plans announced by the agency can clean up this river efficiently and thoroughly. The author provides no information about the level and type of the pollution. Maybe the river is contaminated seriously by waste water which is discharged by a nearby large-scale chemical factory for many years. Therefore, the programs should not only include how to take measures to clean up the water, but also contain that the relevant department might forbid waste water which is drained into this river. In addition, if the pollution is considerably severe, so it might take a long time, even several years to solve the contaminative problem. However, at that time, the local residents maybe favor other kind of recreational activity, such as jogging, skiing instead of water sports.

Further more, even if the quality of the water is the only reason that residents are reluctant to use this river for any recreational activity and it can be cleaned up effectively and quickly, the writer makes an arbitrarily assumption that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need to be improved since the recreational use of river maybe increase. Firstly, the author does not offer us any elaborate condition about the local region. Perhaps the recreational facilities in the publicly owned lands near the river are already significantly perfect and the scenery is considerably beautiful. Thus, it is not necessary for the government to invest more money to do some improvements. What’s more, the writer just tells us that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase, which is only a speculation. So, we do not know whether there will be a large amount of local residents like to use this public lands to do recreational activities in the future. Therefore, without any statistical data about the number of those people, the conclusion of increasing budget for improvement has no meaning. （这一段写得很好）

To strengthen the argument and conclusion, the writer should present more specific and reliable information and statistics about the environment of the region, especially the Mason River and give the appropriate evidence to support these assumptions.
整体看来写得很好啊，该攻击的都攻击了，加油:)