[TSUBASA] 第二次作业 argument137 by wildrose800331

wildrose800331UID：2602131

WORDS: 277 (20mins 加时 443)
TIME: 30 +20
DATE: 2009-6-25 7:54:46

The author, in the argument, predicts that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. This prediction is grounded on three factors: Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for recreation in spite of water sports as their favorite form of recreation; residents have complained about the quality of the water in the river so they must be avoiding the river; the agency responsible for rivers had announced to clean up Mason River. Based on the last prerequisite, the author deduces that recreational use of Mason River is likely to increase. However, both the deduction and prediction are problematic and unwarranted.
First of all, it is unknown whether Mason River is suitable for recreational activity or not. If not, this can substantiate that residents nearby Mason River seldom use it for recreation although they love water sports. In detail, if along the river are crowded with factories and companies but without park or recreational facilities, people, of course, are reluctant to go there.
Similarly, it is unclear how much the quality of the water accounts for the recreational use of the river. Suppose the water in the river is the only source for residents' daily use in a certain area, local people have no more choice of other water supplies. Complaints about the quality of the water in the river can verify people's dissatisfaction about the quality, but can not corroborate the water threatens people's health or safety and residents must be avoiding the river.
In this case, the quality of the water accounts little for the recreational use of the river.
Third, the deduction closely related to the improvement plan of the agency is incomplete and thus inexact. To increase recreational use of Mason River involves more than the quality of water in the river. It comprises smooth transportation, humane convenience (such as, shower rooms, taps, restaurants, shops, and so forth), necessary facilities (including decks, ropes, and others) and improvements to the publicly owned lands. To attract the first pioneers also needs advertisement propaganda and marketing tactics. All of these efforts together may boost the development of recreational use of the river, not only improvements to the lands.
In sum, the conclusion drawn in the argument is not firm and convincing. To strengthen its credibility, the author should point out the possibility and feasibility of Mason River as a place of recreation. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer need to prove the increasing trend of recreational use of the river as well as improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river as an effective action.

qtangtangsUID：2630008

The author, in the argument, predicts that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. This prediction is grounded on three factors: Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for recreation in spite of water sports as their favorite form of recreation; residents have complained about the quality of the water in the river so they must be avoiding the river; the agency responsible for rivers had announced to clean up Mason River. Based on the last prerequisite, the author deduces that recreational use of Mason River is likely to increase. However, both the deduction and prediction are problematic and unwarranted.
(这样的开头好处是，能让rater知道你的攻击点，逻辑清楚，但是，你这样开头的字数一多，耗的时间也就相对较多，很有可能让你下文攻击展开的不够充分)

First of all, it is unknown whether Mason River is suitable for recreational activity or not. If not, this can substantiate that residents nearby Mason River seldom use it for recreation although they love water sports. In detail, if along the river are crowded with factories and companies but without park or recreational facilities, people, of course, are reluctant to go there.(就完了？)

Similarly, it is unclear how much the quality of the water accounts for the recreational use of the river. Suppose the water in the river is the only source for residents' daily use in a certain area, local people have no more choice of other water supplies. Complaints about the quality of the water in the river can verify people's dissatisfaction about the quality, but can not corroborate the water threatens people's health or safety and residents must be avoiding the river.(argument里并没有说人们不愿意去是因为危害了身体健康了，文章说了，就是因为不干净。况且，为什么是唯一的生活用水就可以证明people's dissatisfaction about the quality了呢？我没搞懂.. )In this case, the quality of the water accounts little for the recreational use of the river. (还是，我觉得你这段不充分)

Third(ly), the deduction closely related to the improvement plan of the agency is incomplete and thus inexact. To increase recreational use of Mason River involves more than the quality of water in the river. It comprises smooth transportation, humane convenience (such as, shower rooms, taps, restaurants, shops, and so forth), necessary facilities (including decks, ropes, and others) and improvements to the publicly owned lands(这个最好不要吧.这样让我觉得你某方面有在支持这个argument..). To attract the first pioneers also needs advertisement propaganda and marketing tactics. All of these efforts together may boost the development of recreational use of the river, not only improvements to the lands.(agency只是说要清理河道而已，没说lands，而且你上面又说了要涵盖lands.. 所以还是把上面删了的好，again，我觉得这儿说的我糊里糊涂的，而且展开的不充分，3段都很不充分…而且我觉得三段之间的关系没有.)

In sum, the conclusion drawn in the argument is not firm and convincing. To strengthen its credibility, the author should point out the possibility and feasibility of Mason River as a place of recreation. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer need to prove the increasing trend of recreational use of the river as well as improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river as an effective action.


总的来说，我觉得你攻击点是找对了，但是攻击的方向却很歪..
让我有点云里雾里的感觉.. 不知道有没有列提纲?
列了的话贴出来吧
然后我再看看

wildrose800331UID：2602131

The author, in the argument, predicts that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. This prediction is grounded on three factors: Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for recreation in spite of water sports as their favorite form of recreation; residents have complained about the quality of the water in the river so they must be avoiding the river; the agency responsible for rivers had announced to clean up Mason River. Based on the last prerequisite, the author deduces that recreational use of Mason River is likely to increase. However, both the deduction and prediction are problematic and unwarranted.
(是的 承认 在时间保证的基础上还是想用这样的开头 而且不是每个argu都可以的 喜欢这种开门见山呢。。。）
First of all, it is unknown whether Mason River is suitable for recreational activity or not. If not, this can substantiate that residents nearby Mason River seldom use it for recreation although they love water sports. In detail, if along the river are crowded with factories and companies but without park or recreational facilities, the river can not appeal residents to come for recreational activity due to its surroundings and inconvenience, which is to say, people consider the river anything but a recreational plot.

Similarly, it is unclear how much the quality of the water accounts for the recreational use of the river even if the Mason River is suitable for recreation. Suppose the water in the river is the only source for residents' daily use in a certain area, local people have no more choice of other water supplies. Complaints about the quality of the water in the river can verify people's dissatisfaction about the quality, but can not corroborate the water threatens people's health or safety and residents must be avoiding the river.(argument里并没有说人们不愿意去是因为危害了身体健康了，文章说了，就是因为不干净。况且，为什么是唯一的生活用水就可以证明people's dissatisfaction about the quality了呢？我没搞懂.. )In this case, the quality of the water accounts little for the recreational use of the river. (还是，我觉得你这段不充分)

Third(ly), the deduction closely related to the improvement plan of the agency is incomplete and thus inexact. To increase recreational use of Mason River involves more than the quality of water in the river. It comprises smooth transportation, humane convenience (such as, shower rooms, taps, restaurants, shops, and so forth), necessary facilities (including decks, ropes, and others) and improvements to the publicly owned lands(这个最好不要吧.这样让我觉得你某方面有在支持这个argument..). To attract the first pioneers also needs advertisement propaganda and marketing tactics. All of these efforts together may boost the development of recreational use of the river, not only improvements to the lands.(agency只是说要清理河道而已，没说lands，而且你上面又说了要涵盖lands.. 所以还是把上面删了的好，again，我觉得这儿说的我糊里糊涂的，而且展开的不充分，3段都很不充分…而且我觉得三段之间的关系没有.)

In sum, the conclusion drawn in the argument is not firm and convincing. To strengthen its credibility, the author should point out the possibility and feasibility of Mason River as a place of recreation. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer need to prove the increasing trend of recreational use of the river as well as improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river as an effective action.


总的来说，我觉得你攻击点是找对了，但是攻击的方向却很歪..

wildrose800331UID：2602131

The author, in the argument, predicts that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. This prediction is grounded on three factors: Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for recreation in spite of water sports as their favorite form of recreation; residents have complained about the quality of the water in the river so they must be avoiding the river; the agency responsible for rivers had announced to clean up Mason River. Based on the last prerequisite, the author deduces that recreational use of Mason River is likely to increase. However, both the deduction and prediction are problematic and unwarranted.
(是的 承认 在时间保证的基础上还是想用这样的开头 而且不是每个argu都可以的 喜欢这种开门见山呢。。。）
First of all, it is unknown whether Mason River is suitable for recreational activity or not. If not, this can substantiate that residents nearby Mason River seldom use it for recreation although they love water sports. In detail, if along the river are crowded with factories and companies but without park or recreational facilities, the river can not appeal residents to come for recreational activity due to its surroundings and inconvenience, which is to say, people consider the river anything but a recreational plot.

Similarly, it is unclear how much the quality of the water accounts for the recreational use of the river even if the Mason River is suitable for recreation. Suppose the water in the river is one of the many considerations people take when choosing which river to go for fun. Complaints about the quality of the water in the river can verify people's dissatisfaction about the quality, but can not corroborate that the water, once improved, will definitely increase visitors of the Mason River.Because to increase recreational use of Mason River involves more than the quality of water in the river. It comprises smooth transportation, humane convenience (such as, shower rooms, taps, restaurants, shops, and so forth), necessary facilities (including decks, ropes, and others) and so forth. To attract the first pioneers also needs advertisement propaganda and marketing tactics.

Third, if the recreational use of the Mason River increases, this can not justify the need for government to allot funds to improve the publicly owned land along this river. If the land is already capacable and suitable for recreational use of vast population, there is no need to improve. Alternatively, government may allocate these budgets to other elements, ranging public transportations, marine safeguards  and others related to this river.

In sum, the conclusion drawn in the argument is not firm and convincing. To strengthen its credibility, the author should point out the possibility and feasibility of Mason River as a place of recreation. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer need to prove that water improvement can increase visitors of the river as well as necessity of improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river as an effective action.


看这样好点了么？ 组长