argument137 【kaleidoscope】小组第四次作业

cloverlanpusUID: 2606441

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the Mason City council should increase the budget on improving the publicly owned lands along the Mason River because the recreational activities on this river will increase. To support this conclusion the arguer cites a survey about the favorite form of recreation of the region's residents an plan to change the quality of the river. However, there are still obvious fallacies in this argument.

First of all, I find no sign in this argument that the river will surely be clean enough for water sports but the plan announce by the agency. However, the arguer fails to provide more details about this plan, let alont its final result. Thus, I have good reason to doubt whether this plan will be worked out  as the arguer's assumption. Even if it could change the quality of the river, no evidence can ensure that the result will reach the residents' expectation. To support his conclusion effectively, more information about the details and supervision about this plan is needed.

Secondly,even if the water would be clean enough to have water sports there,  the assertion that the recreation activities on it will increase is unreliable. The arguer hastily establish a causal relationship between the complaints about quality of water and the shortage of recreation on it. However, the arguer hasn't rule out other possibilities that may cause residents' absence of water sports on it. It is entirely possible that the river is not wide enough to boat on it .Or maybe the lack of sufficient fish is the cause of fishermen's ignoring. Thus, unless the arguer carefully study all these possible causes that may exert a influence on the residents' recreational activities, he cannot convince me that the conclusion is warranted.

Thirdly, even the plan were effective and residents would like to do waters sports on Mason River, the arguer still cannot draw a conclusion that the Mason City council should increase the budget for the improvement to the publicly owned lands along the river. We are told no thing about any report that the region's residents are complaining about the publicly owned lands along the river or the these land will not meet the need of the residents' requirement in the future. Thus, it is entirely unnecessary to increase the budget because there may be other aspects of the construction in the city that need financial investment immediately.

To sum up, the arguer does not support his argument directly and effectively. To strengthen his conclusion, he should conduct a thorough investigation into the plan's effect and its relationship with residents' recreation. What's more, study about the current condition of the publicly owned lands are also indispensable.     

atticuswangUID: 2663189

Argument137:
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the Mason City council should increase the budget on improving the publicly owned lands along the Mason River because the recreational activities on this river will increase. To support this conclusion the arguer cites a survey about the favorite form of recreation of the region's residents an plan to change the quality of the river. However, there are still obvious fallacies in this argument.

First of all, I find no sign in this argument that the river will surely be clean enough for water sports but the plan announce by the agency(缺少成分吧). However, the arguer fails to provide more details about this plan, let alone its final result. Thus, I have good reason to doubt whether this plan will be worked out  as the arguer's assumption. Even if it could change the quality of the river, no evidence can ensure that the result will reach the residents' expectation. To support his conclusion effectively, more information about the details and supervision about this plan is/are needed.

Secondly, even if the water would be clean enough to have water sports there,   the assertion that the recreation activities on it will increase is unreliable. The arguer hastily establish a causal relationship between the complaints about quality of water and the shortage of recreation on it（题目中貌似提到的是由于水的质量问题而不是shortage of recreation而产生的complains吧）. However, the arguer hasn't rule out other possibilities that may cause residents' absence of water sports on it. It is entirely possible that the river is not wide enough to boat on it .Or maybe the lack of sufficient fish is the cause of fishermen's ignoring. Thus, unless the arguer carefully study all these possible causes that may exert a influence on the residents' recreational activities, he cannot convince me that the conclusion is warranted.

Thirdly, even if the plan were effective and residents would like to do waters sports on Mason River, the arguer still cannot draw a conclusion that the Mason City council should increase the budget for the improvement to the publicly owned lands along the river. We are told nothing about any report that the region's residents are complaining about the publicly owned lands along the river or these lands will not meet the need of the residents' requirement in the future. Thus, it is entirely unnecessary to increase the budget because there may be other aspects of the construction in the city that need financial investment immediately.
To sum up, the arguer does not support his argument directly and effectively. To strengthen his conclusion, he should conduct a thorough investigation into the plan's effect and its relationship with residents' recreation. What's more, study about the current condition of the publicly owned lands is also indispensable.     

不知道队长大人是怎么复习A的？是不是多看看别人的文章把比较有说服力的错误总结出来，然后把自己的有点牵强的代替掉？我觉得你的第二点提得很好。