【kaleidoscope】小组第4次作业 AGREMENT137 by rjyuu

rjyuuUID：2591508

TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - The following appearedin an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.

"At present, Mason City residentsseldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, eventhough surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports(swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since therehave been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residentsmust be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. Butthat situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in ourregion has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational useof the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need toincrease its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along theMason River."              







In the argument, the author claims that Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River. To support his conclusion the author pointed out that an agency in Mason City has announced plans to clean up the river, the water quality of which has long been complained of by citizens. He also reasoned that since the water quality of the river will definitely be enhanced, the recreational use of the river will increase, and this, in his point of view, will perfectly demonstrate his conclusion. At first sight, the argument seems to be logical; however, after clearly examining it we may find the argument is not well-reasoned. The reasons are as follows.

To start with, the arguer assumes that citizens are avoiding the river simply because the river is not clean enough, yet he fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate it. It is entirely possible that people choose not to recreate themselves there for other reasons – like the water in the river may be too deep or too shallow, making it unsuitable for fishing, swimming or boating; Or maybe the river is located in remote and less-developed areas of the city with inconvenient traffic facilities and therefore is hardly accessible; Still, it is even possible that in this city exists other rivers perfect for recreational activities... If any of the possibilities mentioned above is true, residents will keep avoiding Mason River no matter how dramatically the water-quality is enhanced.

Besides, even if the water quality is the key factor preventing people from doing recreational activities, there is no guarantee that the agency's plan will work effectively in improving the water quality. There is no evidence regarding the agency's qualification. Thus whether they are able to successfully accomplish the task is open to question. In addition, since the author fails to provide us with more information concerning what standard the agency is using and how clean the water will become later according to their plans, it is quite possible that although the agency finish their jobs according to their expectation the water quality may still be too dirty for recreational use--Not to mention there exists the possibility that the plan may never be put into practice since making a promise is always trouble-free yet to fulfill it is much tougher.

Finally, even if recreational use of the river is likely to increase, it does not necessarily mean that Mason City council should increase its budget. More tourists will create more good chances for business, attracting insightful merchants to open their own business there and at the same time satiate all the tourists' needs. If so, why does the City council bother to spend more money?

In conclusion, the argument is not so convincing as it stands. To make it more persuasive the author would provide us with more evidence directly showing that as long as the water quality is enhanced more residents will be attracted. Also, to better evaluate the argument, it is suggested that more investigations concerning what prevents people from recreate themselves in the river be made before any final conclusion is drawn.

wdassfmUID：2542447

In the argument, the author claims that Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River. To support his conclusion the author pointed out that an agency in Mason City has announced plans to clean up the river, the water quality of which has long been complained of by citizens. He also reasoned that since the water quality of the river will definitely be enhanced, the recreational use of the river will increase, and this, in his point of view, will perfectly demonstrate his conclusion. At first sight, the argument seems to be logical; however, after clearly examining it we may find the argument is not well-reasoned. The reasons are as follows.(对原文的复述还是压缩下的好)

To start with, the arguer assumes that citizens are avoiding the river simply because the river is not clean enough, yet he fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate it. It is entirely possible that people choose not to recreate themselves there for other reasons – like the water in the river may be too deep or too shallow, making it unsuitable for fishing, swimming or boating; Or maybe the river is located in remote and less-developed areas of the city with inconvenient traffic facilities and therefore is hardly accessible; Still, it is even possible that in this city exists other rivers perfect for recreational activities... If any of the possibilities mentioned above is true, residents will keep avoiding Mason River no matter how dramatically the water-quality is enhanced.(三个方面提得很好，学习中……)

Besides, even if the water quality is the key factor preventing people from doing recreational activities, there is no guarantee that the agency's plan will work effectively in improving the water quality. There is no evidence regarding the agency's qualification. Thus whether they are able to successfully accomplish the task is open to question. In addition, since the author fails to provide us with more information concerning what standard the agency is using and how clean the water will become later according to their plans, it is quite possible that although the agency finish their jobs according to their expectation the water quality may still be too dirty for recreational use--Not to mention there exists the possibility that the plan may never be put into practice since making a promise is always trouble-free yet to fulfill it is much tougher.(好句子)

Finally, even if recreational use of the river is likely to increase, it does not necessarily mean that Mason City council should increase its budget. More tourists will create more good chances for business, attracting insightful merchants to open their own business there and at the same time satiate(好像有生腻的意思) all the tourists' needs. If so, why does the City council bother to spend more money?(这个提法很好，但是最好不要提tourists吧，毕竟作者提议的目的是给居民服务的~考虑下)

In conclusion, the argument is not so convincing as it stands. To make it more persuasive the author would provide us with more evidence directly showing that as long as the water quality is enhanced more residents will be attracted. Also, to better evaluate the argument, it is suggested that more investigations concerning what prevents people from recreate themselves in the river be made before any final conclusion is drawn.(总结似乎只提到了上面论述的一个方面，建议把另外两个也提一下)

LZ思路清晰，句式的变换值得学习。顺便问一句，这篇写下来花了多久呢~

rjyuuUID：2591508

2# wdassfm

十分感谢~建议非常中肯！

四十五分钟左右吧...比i短多了...因为背摸板的缘故