Argument137, 没太用模板 很害怕口语化

Chelsea_CCUID：2627394

敲完了是感觉很畅快 可惜就怕口语化了~

可能有些语法错误 我都是尽力改过的
顺便问个问题 语法错误改过我一看就知道错了 但是自己却找不出来  怎么办~

谢谢了
"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."
In this letter the author recommended to increase the budget for the improvements to the publicly owners lands along the Mason River. And based the recommendation on the assumption that “recreational use of the river is likely to increase" because the agency had announced plans to clean up the river. To support it, the author put out several evidences such as surveys and complains of residents. However careful examination of this letter reveals several flews that render the author's conclusion unconvincing or even absurd.
To begin with, the author unfairly assumed that the residents didn't take recreational activity was because the river's unclearness. Yet the author overlooks two ascension factors. On one hand, lacking information about whether the river can be used as recreational place, it is unfair to claim that the reason residents’ avoiding the river is because of the quality of the water. What if the river has rapids or with large sharp stones under the water, how can people entertainment in such a dangerous place. On the other hand, admittedly, there have been complaints, but these can not reflect the overall residents' attitude towards the recreational use of the river. Thus the quality of water cannot be the only reason or even cannot be the reason to claim.
Secondly, as discussed below, the author doesn't prove the reason of the less recreational use of the river is the water quality, how can it been assumed that the cleaned up of the river can likely to increase the recreational use. What if the current is still rapid? What if it is still dangerous? If so the residents are still unlikely to take recreational activity there.
Finally, even we abide and ignore all the flews discussed before; the conclusion of the author’s that Mason City council will increase the improvement of publicly owed land is ridiculous. As the author pointed out in the letter, it is the quality of the water that makes people avoiding the river, so there is probably nothing to do with the publicly owed lands. We even don't know the aim of the author for doing this. Without ruling out the reason for and evidence to support it, the author's recommendation amounts to poor advice.
In sum, the evidence the author cited cannot convincible support his conclusion, at least in this letter. It would be better, if he give an analysis which can show that people not use the river for recreational activity is because of the water and improve would attract more people. In addition, the author should also give some explanation to the aim of improve the lands. Thus, the argument would be more logical and sound.

irvine666UID：2575525

"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."

In this letter the author recommended to increase the budget for the improvements to the publicly owners lands along the Mason River. And based the recommendation（下划线表示可删掉，下同） on the assumption that “recreational use of the river is likely to increase"(这个句子无主语) because the agency had announced plans to clean up the river. To support it, the author put out several evidences such as surveys and complains of residents. However careful examination of this letter reveals several flews that render the author's conclusion unconvincing or even absurd（人身攻击的词不要用）.（逻辑关系理的比较粗略，不过问题不大）

To begin with, the author unfairly assumed that the residents didn't take recreational activity was because the river's unclearness. Yet the author overlooks two ascension factors. On one hand, lacking information about whether the river can be used as recreational place, it is unfair to claim that the reason residents’ avoiding the river is because of the quality of the water. What if（what if 带的一般是问句） the river has rapids or with large sharp stones under the water（而且这个分句的语气比较绝对了，可以考虑改为：if 带的从句）, how can people entertainment（entertain） in such a dangerous place.(这个他因找的还是很合理的) On the other hand, admittedly, there have been complaints, but these can not reflect the overall residents' attitude towards the recreational use of the river.(为什么不能reflect？你需要解释一下你这句话。顺带指出原文当中在这一个点上的一些不够有说服力的地方。) Thus the quality of water cannot be the only reason or even cannot be the reason to claim.（第一个分论点是批驳因果关系谬误，我建议你在结尾加一句话，回到recreational activity和unclearness的关系上来）

Secondly, as discussed below, the author doesn't prove the reason of the less recreational use of the river is the water quality,（这个段落论点明显和前面一个重复了，都是讨论水质的问题，我觉得把它们合并会更好。） how can it been assumed that the cleaned up of the river can likely to increase the recreational use. What if the current is still rapid? What if it is still dangerous? If so the residents are still unlikely to take recreational activity there.

Finally, even we abide and ignore all the flews discussed before; the conclusion of the author’s that Mason City council will increase the improvement（increase 换成 trigger。） of publicly owed land is ridiculous（继续人身攻击，换成hasty,rash,imprudent之类语气更加客观的词）. As the author pointed out in the letter, it is the quality of the water that makes people avoiding the river, so there is probably nothing to do with(nothing to do 这个词用的过于绝对化了，用a little) the publicly owed lands. We even don't know the aim of the author for doing this. Without ruling out the reason for and evidence to support it, the author's recommendation amounts to poor advice.（我认为这段话最重要的批驳点是在于政府投的钱不一定足够有效，所以你应当把重心放在对政府投钱的使用效率上）

In sum, the evidence the author cited cannot convincible support his conclusion, at least in this letter. It would be better, if he give an analysis which can show that people not use the river for recreational activity is because of the water and improve would attract more people. In addition, the author should also give some explanation to the aim of improve the lands. Thus, the argument would be more logical and sound.（结尾不改，个人习惯）

irvine666UID：2575525

你在找茬这个方面做得还不够，另外对于论述方面，除开第一个body段，其他的2个也很不充分。
这篇文章的逻辑链条是这样的
居民抱怨水质问题 --> 居民不愿意在河边娱乐是因为水质（这个逻辑错误你找的很好）  
政府投钱来整理河水 + 投钱治理周边环境--> （河水就会变好） --> 人们就可以在河里娱乐活动（这个隐含的推论你没有找到）

此外，你的文章里面自己的论述同样不够多。
我们要驳倒别人的话，仅仅是找他因绝对不够的。只用它因就驳倒一切的推理方式，从严格的逻辑来说，是诡辩，没有说服力的。
为什么能驳倒？这个问题是必须在文章里面回答的。“他因出现以后，对作者观点的关键的负面影响”属于你的理论依据，一篇好文绝对不能略掉。