Argument137 （modified by bernina）

kay8815UID: 2668603

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

"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason Riverfor any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region'sresidents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as afavorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the qualityof the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because theythink that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: theagency 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 forimprovements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."
                                                                                                        （我帮你粘贴上来，下次别忘了发原文^^---bernina）


A137:
1， 没有证据说明居民很少利用M河来娱乐是因为水质的问题。投诉是否具有代表性,投诉时间是过去，现在不一定。
2，忽略其他可能性。可能(1)是天气变化河水变湍急，(2)城市建设了其他新的娱乐措施等。
3， 即使是因为水质问题，清理计划不一定能有效（机构宣布了计划，不一定河水就能干净，污染程度，还有工作效率，都不一定能达到标准）
4， 即使清理成功，人们愿意来娱乐，没有证据是否有必要改造河沿岸公共土地（是否很差？是否人们已经满意了？如果满意了只会是浪费钱）


Grounding on some facts and analyses, the author comes to the conclusion that with the purpose of attracting people taking water sports in M river, a clean-up plan is needed. In addition, it is necessary to increase the budget of improving surrounding environment along the river. While this argument seems plausible at first glance, the reasoning process is flawed in several major aspects.
           
Primarily, while the author ascribes the citizen’s avoid of river to the bane of poor water quality, no evidence available indicates a casual relationship between them. Firstly, we are not informed with whether M River is suitable for recreational activity or not. Perhaps the weather in M is too cold during most time of the year. Or perhaps too much vortexes in the river makes it dangerous to take water sports especially swimming and boating in the river. Secondly, what if it is surrounded with factories and tall buildings instead of parks and greenbelt? It is also possible that the river is remote from the city centre. Thirdly, maybe it is the companion of other recreation facilities such as swimming pools and amusement parks which led to M's out of fashion. If so,( If this is the case) the clean-up plan in order to drawing people's attention to have recreational activities in it will be useless. Let alone no solid evidence and scientific statistics are provided to convince me that the complaint is representative of the overall citizens.

Next, even assuming that pollution is the main problem we are now faced with. A plan cannot guarantee a consequence. Would the government surely take the plan into action? Would the river be purified to a certain level which is enough for people to have sports in? Would the citizen satisfied with the outcome of the plan? Only after we see the accomplishment can we conclude whether the recreational use of the river will increase.

Granted that the clean-up plan is helpful and more people are attracted to take water sports in M river, I still can not find what the author's recommendation to increase the budget on improving the publicity owned land is based on. Absent evidence there is, it is highly possible that residents who participate in water sports do not take much use of land along the river. After all, water sports happen mainly on the surface of river. On the other hand, suppose the environment along M river is good enough already, thus there is no use to make any improvement at all.

To sum up, the author's recommendation is unwarranted and hasty. To solidify it, the author should point out the feasibility of M as a place of recreation, and ensure the government’s plan would carry out successfully. In addition, he ought to inform us of the existing facilities along M river. Without the evidences mentioned above, I would suspend my judgment about the reliability of the argument.

草木也知愁UID: 2487572

这次的对了 不过你把以前的改一下我重新给你开就是了 这样重复发帖之后我还得把你以前的帖子删掉

kay8815UID: 2668603

删吧。。

berninaUID: 2503038

紫色：我的建议
红色：有问题
墨绿：还不错

A137:
1， 没有证据说明居民很少利用M河来娱乐是因为水质的问题。投诉是否具有代表性,投诉时间是过去，现在不一定。
2，忽略其他可能性。可能(1)是天气变化河水变湍急，(2)城市建设了其他新的娱乐措施等。
3， 即使是因为水质问题，清理计划不一定能有效（机构宣布了计划，不一定河水就能干净，污染程度，还有工作效率，都不一定能达到标准）
4， 即使清理成功，人们愿意来娱乐，没有证据是否有必要改造河沿岸公共土地（是否很差？是否人们已经满意了？如果满意了只会是浪费钱）

这个提纲思路还是挺好的，但是有些混乱：你第一点说不一定是因为水质问题，这个很好，但是你不应该把投诉和这个放在一段，而是把 1，2合并，
把投诉另开一段：说投诉水质有问题，不一定是觉得不干净，也许水里含有对身体不好的元素之类，还有，你忽略了最最重要的一个逻辑漏洞，这条河到底是用做什么的，也许是供给市区居民的饮用用水呢？是不是含有一些对身体不好的物质，从而引来了投诉之类。。。也就是说 把不来娱乐不是因为水质问题和投诉分开两段


Grounding on some facts and analyses, the author comes to the conclusion that with the purpose of attracting people taking water sports in M river, a clean-up plan is needed. In addition, it is necessary to increase the budget of improving surrounding environment along the river. While this argument seems plausible at first glance, the reasoning process is flawed in several major aspects.
你这样的开头也可以，但是我一直认为，开头是不需要复述文章内容的，argument考得不是你的总结能力，而是思维能力，而开头的目的就是要表明此篇文章的主题并且统领全文，那么a的开头，在我看来，最理想的模式就是 指明作者无法达到目的+文章逻辑错误概括

Primarily, while the author ascribes the citizen’s avoid of river to the bane of poor water quality, no evidence available indicates a casual relationship between them（其实这样的开头就不错，但是我认为吧No evidence那半句放在前面就更好了）. Firstly, we are not informed with whether M River is suitable for recreational activity or not. Perhaps the weather in M is too cold during most time of the year. Or perhaps too much vortexes in the river makes it dangerous to take water sports especially swimming and boating in the river. Secondly, what if it is surrounded with factories and tall buildings instead of parks and greenbelt? It is also possible that the river is remote from the city centre. Thirdly, maybe it is the companion of other recreation facilities such as swimming pools and amusement parks which led to M's out of fashion. If so,( If this is the case)（用 if this is the case就行） the clean-up plan（+which） in order to drawing(drawing) people's attention to have recreational activities in it will be useless. Let alone no solid evidence and scientific statistics(chinglish 记住, scientific 是中性词，不是褒义词。说xxx很科学是不对的，是具有中国特色的说法，实际上，只有可能被推翻的理论才叫科学) are provided to convince me that the complaint is representative of the overall citizens（这个就转的太快了，之前一点投诉的事情都没说，你是怎么得到这个结论的呢？）.
这段的论述整体都挺好，只是这个结尾太出乎我的意料了，转的太快，根本不是一回事啊。。。。


Next, even +if assuming that pollution is the main problem we are（You?） now faced with. A plan cannot guarantee a consequence(这样表达不对，solely depending upon a vague plan, the author cannot guarantee that it can reach its prospected goal.). Would the government surely take the plan into action?(这个质疑有强词夺理之嫌) Would the river be purified to a certain level which is enough for people to have sports in? Would the citizen satisfied（satisfy） with the outcome of the plan? Only after we see the accomplishment can we conclude whether the recreational use of the river will increase.
这段不错，注意一些语法问题和表达问题就好

Granted that the clean-up plan is helpful and more people are attracted to take water sports in M river, I still can not find what the author's recommendation to increase the budget on improving the publicity owned land is based on. Absent evidence there is, it is highly possible that residents who participate in water sports do not take much use of land along the river. After all, water sports happen mainly on the surface of river. On the other hand, suppose（supposing that） the environment along M river is good enough already, thus there is no use to make any improvement at all. +Therefore, the author's conclusion becomes  meaningless.
不错，没什么好改的，不过你可以稍微整理一下：1 也许这里的环境本身就很好 2 就算不是很好，也没有必要改善。

To sum up, the author's recommendation is unwarranted and hasty. To solidify it, the author should point out the feasibility of M as a place of recreation, and ensure the government’s plan would carry out successfully. In addition, he ought to inform us of the existing facilities along M river. Without the evidences mentioned above, I would suspend my judgment about the reliability of the argument.
不错，属于理想的结尾套路

in sum: 不错的文章哦，逻辑问题找得比较准， 思路也比较清晰，表达也很好。
需要注意的问题是： 一些小的语法问题，再完善完善论证结构，记得在考试的时候，留出5分钟来检查，应该能得到好的分数。
加油加油。很不错。

ok, any comment is welcomed
ps: 下次和大家互改的时候，千万要记得把a的原文发上来。

xueyiUID: 2647060

追踪bernina的修改铺
呵呵

kay8815UID: 2668603

谢谢bernina ，我回去好好改改～受益匪浅