【kaleidoscope】小组第四次作业 ARGUMENT137 by 网兜妮妮

网兜妮妮UID：2612538

提纲
1 人们不去MASON玩不一定和河水被污染有关。
2 就算有关，治理之后也不一定有好转。或者治理好了人们也不再喜欢MASON了。
3 就算前两个都对，也不一定要预算改善河边道路。


The argument is well-designed but not well-supported. The author used some dubious evidence to conclude the use of Mason River will increase, in turn, to claim the city council will need to increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. However, from the evidence about the complaints of the quality of water in the river, the survey of residence and the announcement of the plan, it is not clear that people will choose Mason for recreation in future, then, the budget may be unnecessary as well.

Firstly, without eliminated other reasons, the author fails to conclude the seldom use of Mason is because of the bad quality of water. Though there have been complaints of the quality of water, what these complaints for? For it is not clean as a recreation place, or for it is not as clean as before, or it is not clean for a certain kind of fish to live? maybe, the water is not clean as before, but still very clean as a recreation places, then it is not the reason for the seldom use of it. Moreover, maybe there are other rivers or parks besides which provide the place for water sports, or it is too danger to play at river, so the Mason is less used. Therefore, the author lacks clear evidence to linked the seldom use of Mason with the quality of water.

Secondly, even if it is the reason that people did not want to go to Mason for play, the plan to clean up the river may not have anticipated result. No more evidence to indicate the plan will change the situation----to make Mason for a wonderful place for recreation. Perhaps, the river was severely polluted that the plan is just to lessen the pollution, but it still unqualified to be a good place for water sports. So, the announcement of the plan not equals to the improvement of the quality of water for recreational activity. What’s more, even the quality of Mason was indeed being improved, there lacks evidence to indicate the residence will still choose Mason as a recreation place, or they may have better places for entertainment rather than Mason.

Thirdly, even the assumption above were true, it lacks evidence to support the need of the budge for the improvements of publicly owned lands. Maybe the lands is very well build and unnecessary for any improvement. Or perhaps people no longer like water sports and not interested in playing in or around Mason. Therefore, without more evidence, the conclusion was not well stands.

In sum, to strengthen the argument, the author need to provide evidence about the true reason of the residence who do not go to Mason for play, and more specific information about the clean up plan; finally, the necessity of the improvement of the publicly owned land around Mason. Then he or she can fairly come to the conclusion as the article shows.

azoiUID：2636348

1# 网兜妮妮
提纲
1
人们不去MASON玩不一定和河水被污染有关。（不是不去Mason而是Mason river）
2 就算有关，治理之后也不一定有好转。或者治理好了人们也不再喜欢MASON了。
3 就算前两个都对，也不一定要预算改善河边道路。
The argument is well-designed but not well-supported. The author used some dubious evidence to conclude the use of Mason River will increase, in turn, to claim the city council will need to increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. However, from the evidence about the complaints of the quality of water in the river, the survey of residence and the announcement of the plan, it is not clear that people will choose Mason for recreation in future, then, the budget may be unnecessary as well.
Firstly, without eliminated other reasons, the author fails to conclude the seldom use of Mason is because of the bad quality of water. Though there have been complaints of the quality of water, what these complaints for? For it is not clean as a recreation place, or for it is not as clean as before, or it is not clean for a certain kind of fish to live? maybe, the water is not clean as before, but still very clean as a recreation places, then it is not the reason for the seldom use of it. Moreover, maybe there are other rivers or parks besides which provide the place for water sports, or it is too danger to play at river, so the Mason is less used. Therefore, the author lacks clear evidence to linked the seldom use of Mason with the quality of water.
质疑水质不好的程度很到位

Secondly, even if it is the reason that people did not want to go to Mason for play, the plan to clean up the river may not have anticipated result. No more evidence to indicate the plan will change the situation----（--）to make Mason for a wonderful place for recreation. Perhaps, the river was severely polluted that the plan is just to lessen the pollution, but it still unqualified to be a good place for water sports. So, the announcement of the plan not equals to the improvement of the quality of water for recreational activity. What’s more, even the quality of Mason was indeed being improved, there lacks evidence to indicate the residence will still choose Mason as a recreation place, or they may have better places for entertainment rather than Mason.（原文中没有说是外面的人来mason，而是在强调mason的居民不去Mason river）

Thirdly, even the assumption above were true, it lacks evidence to support the need of the budget for the improvements of publicly owned lands. Maybe the lands is very well build and unnecessary for any improvement. Or perhaps people no longer like water sports and not interested in playing in or around Mason. Therefore, without more evidence, the conclusion was not well stands (up).
In sum, to strengthen the argument, the author need to provide evidence about the true reason of the residence who do not go to Mason for play, and more specific information about the clean up plan; finally, the necessity of the improvement of the publicly owned land around Mason. Then he or she can fairly come to the conclusion as the article shows.

米饭袜子UID：2532172

那个。。。LZ下回注意下题目拼写= =
argument.....
这次我帮你改了

网兜妮妮UID：2612538

好吧，米饭我错了~~~