【kaleidoscope】第四次作业Argument137 by Atticuswang

atticuswangUID：2663189

137The 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."

1.怀疑Mason市的人们很少用那条river的原因是不是由于河水变脏了。即使是有关于河水不干净的complains，也不能够推测……

2.即使清理干净了，recreation use of the river 不见得increase.

3.mason city的财政预算要不要增大还不确定，可能有私人组织或者其他的因素提供财政资助来解决这个问题。

In this editorial, the author suggests that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements of the Mason River on the assumption that the recreational use of this river is likely to increase. To support this suggestion, the author points out that region's residents there consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation yet the Mason river is seldom used for any kind of recreation activity, so he deduces that the bad water quality is the reason for this respect and believes that clean water will attract more people to recreate themselves along that river. However, I find there are several fallacies in this editorial, as discussed below.

To begin with, I strongly doubt that few residents going to the Mason River for any kind of recreational activity is due to the unclean water, even though the author has pointed out there have been complains about the quality of the water. For one thing, without any details about how many people they cover and some other exact issues, the surveys cited lend less support to prove that residents there are fond of water sports. Generally speaking, slightly polluted water does not affect people's boating at all, yet there are nearly nobody boating, so I speculate that there are some other problems which limit the recreation use of that river. Perhaps the river is too deep and wide to swim and few people swim there on the consideration of personal safety. Or maybe residents there are more likely to fish in the nearby lakes rather than rivers where the fish density is lower. In a word, the author's assumption that the absence of recreation activity is due to unclean water is unconvincing.

Even if the Mason City council takes pains to clean that river, it remains to be a question whether the recreation use of the river will increase. I think the author oversimplifies this rub. For one thing, even the result of surveys is true and the region's residents like the water sports, there is no necessary evidence to show that they must go to that river for recreation. Obviously, the author fails to take some other similar places, like Water Parks, into consideration. Maybe people are more likely to be tempted to go the Water Parks for the diversity of water sports rather than just swimming, fishing and boating; and moreover, maybe the riverside recreation activities cost visitors more than other places. Without ruling out all these possibilities, how could the author claim that the recreation use of Mason River is likely to increase after cleaning up the river?

Moreover, in spite that the recreation use of Mason River may increase, no evidence offered to support that the government must increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river side. In fact, investors are likely to be attracted to these lands as long as they can gain profits. Therefore the publicly own lands maybe rented to these investors and government no need to worry about the budget for improvements. Moreover, money can also be raised by some local private organizations; if it is this case, the author's claim is unreasonable either.

In conclusion, the author's suggestion is weak, and to bolster this view, more information is required:(1) the exact reason why few people use the Mason River for recreation activities(2)evidence to prove that the clean water of the Mason River will attract more people to come(3)whether the government need to increase its budget for improvements. Only in this way can he makes his claim more convincing.

cloverlanpusUID：2606441

In this editorial, the author suggests that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements of the Mason River on the assumption that the recreational use of this river is likely to increase. To support this suggestion, the author points out that region's residents there consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation yet the Mason river is seldom used for any kind of recreation activity, so he deduces that the bad water quality is the reason for this respect and believes that clean water will attract more people to recreate themselves along that river.(restate有点过长，再稍微精简一些吧) However, I find there are several fallacies in this editorial, as discussed below.

To begin with, I strongly doubt that few residents going to the Mason River for any kind of recreational activity is due to the unclean water, even though the author has pointed out there have been complains about the quality of the water. For one thing, without any details about how many people they cover and some other exact issues, the surveys cited lend less support to prove that residents there are fond of water sports. Generally speaking, slightly polluted water does not affect people's boating at all, yet there are nearly nobody boating, so I speculate that there are some other problems which limit the recreation use of that river. Perhaps the river is too deep and wide to swim and few people swim there on the consideration of personal safety. Or maybe residents there are more likely to fish in the nearby lakes rather than rivers where the fish density is lower. In a word, the author's assumption that the absence of recreation activity is due to unclean water is unconvincing.

Even if the Mason City council takes pains to clean that river, it remains to be a question whether the recreation use of the river will increase. I think the author oversimplifies this rub. For one thing, even the result of surveys is true and the region's residents like the water sports, there is no necessary evidence to show that they must go to that river for recreation. Obviously, the author fails to take some other similar places, like Water Parks, into consideration. Maybe people are more likely to be tempted to go the Water Parks for the diversity of water sports rather than just swimming, fishing and boating; and moreover, maybe the riverside recreation activities cost visitors more than other places. Without ruling out all these possibilities, how could the author claim that the recreation use of Mason River is likely to increase after cleaning up the river?(感觉跟上一点有点重复呢~）

Moreover, in spite that the recreation use of Mason River may increase, no evidence offered to support that the government must increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river side. In fact, investors are likely to be attracted to these lands as long as they can gain profits. Therefore the publicly own lands may be rented to these investors and government no need to worry about the budget for improvements. Moreover, money can also be raised by some local private organizations; if it is this case, the author's claim is unreasonable either.

In conclusion, the author's suggestion is weak, and to bolster this view, more information is required:(1) the exact reason why few people use the Mason River for recreation activities(2)evidence to prove that the clean water of the Mason River will attract more people to come(3)whether the government need to increase its budget for improvements. Only in this way can he makes his claim more convincing.（不确定这种1\2\3结尾是否妥当……）

抱歉，今天家里来客人，所以改的晚了。这篇argument没什么大问题，每一点的问题再明确一下就更好了。）