【kaleidoscope】小组第4次作业 AGREMENT137 by vina1114

vina1114UID：2559135

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 this argument, the author concludes that the Mason City should increase the budget for the publicly owned lands along Mason River, because the people will do more recreational activities in the river. To strengthen this conclusion, the speaker point out that more people will use river for entertainment as a result of the river will be cleaned up.However, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the author assumes unfairly that people avoid the river is the result of the problem about the quality of the water in the river. The only reason for this causal relation is that some people have complained about the quality of the water. The author ignores other possible factors that may also contribute to make people do less recreational activities by using the river. Perhaps people the recent weather is not well and fit for people do some water sports. Or perhaps people spend more time on their work and so reduce their entertainment time. More over, perhaps a new kind of recreational activities which is so interesting that attract most people to take part in. since the author has failed to account for these possibilities, so the claim that the quality of the water in the river cause people to avoid the river is unwarranted.

Secondly, even if the quality of the water stratifies people by taking some effective measures, the recreational use of the river may not increase. Better water does not mean that more and more people would like to play in that river. People may pay more attention to the safety and choose more safety places to do some exercise rather river. Also there may be a new water park built in the region. People prefer choosing water park which they think is more interesting than river. Without ruling out such alternative factors for recreational activity the author cannot justify conclude that merely by improving the quality of water in the river would cause more people to use the river for recreation.

Thirdly, a correlation between the increasing recreational use of the river and the budget for improving the publicly owned lands along the Mason River does not convince me that the budget should be increased in order to meet the need of the increasing recreational use of the river. The publicly owned lands along the river may not be many and budget is enough to do some improvements without any necessity to increase it. Or the use of the river has nothing to do with the lands along the river. So I can not accept the author’s recommendation that the just for the increasing recreational use of river the budgets for improving publicly owned lands along the river should be increased.

In sum, the author‘s conclusion is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide clear evidence that the better quality of water in the river could attract more people to play in the river. To better assess the recommendation, I would also need to know more information the publicly owned lands along the river .

wdassfmUID：2542447

In this argument, the author concludes that the Mason City should increase the budget for the publicly owned lands along Mason River, because the people will do more recreational activities in the river. To strengthen this conclusion, the speaker point out that more people will use river for entertainment as a result of the river will be cleaned up. However, the argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.(对原文的复述还是在压缩一点就更好了O(∩_∩)O~)

To begin with, the author assumes unfairly(换下位置) that people avoid(people’s avoidance) the river is the result of the problem about the quality of the water in the river. The only reason for this causal relation is that some people have complained about the quality of the water. The author ignores other possible factors that may also contribute to make(making) people do less recreational activities by using the river. Perhaps people(delete) the recent weather is not well and fit for people do some water sports. Or perhaps people spend more time on their work and so reduce their entertainment time. More over, perhaps a new kind of recreational activities which is so interesting that attract most people to take part in. since the author has failed to account for these possibilities, so the claim that the quality of the water in the river cause people to avoid the river is unwarranted.

Secondly, even if the quality of the water stratifies(?) people by taking some effective measures, the recreational use of the river may not increase. Better water does not mean that more and more people would like to play in that river. People may pay more attention to the safety and choose more safety places to do some exercise rather river. Also there may be a new water park built in the region. People prefer choosing water park which they think is more interesting than river. Without ruling out such alternative factors for recreational activity the author cannot justify(justly) conclude that merely by improving the quality of water in the river would cause more people to use the river for recreation.

Thirdly, a correlation between the increasing recreational use of the river and the budget for improving the publicly owned lands along the Mason River does not convince me that the budget should be increased in order to meet the need of the increasing recreational use of the river. The publicly owned lands along the river may not be many and budget is enough to do some improvements without any necessity to increase it. Or the use of the river has nothing to do with the lands along the river. So I can not accept the author’s recommendation that the just for the increasing recreational use of river the budgets for improving publicly owned lands along the river should be increased.

In sum, the author‘s conclusion is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide clear evidence that the better quality of water in the river could attract more people to play in the river. To better assess the recommendation, I would also need to know more information the publicly owned lands along the river.

写的不错，但是关于agency的那方面还是提提的好