[天下无G]第7次作业 Argument137

jacanaUID: 2292520

TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - The 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."
WORDS: 375          TIME: 0:30:00  (第一次限时，未成功……)        DATE: 2007-2-8

The proposal endorsed by the editorial in the newspaper is that the Mason City (MC) needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, for the purpose of increasing recreational use of the river of MC residents. To justify the statement, the author points out that though water sports is consistently ranked as a favorite form of recreation for MC residents; they seldom use the nearby Mason River for any activities. And he also assumes that it is from the dirty water that prevents the residents. On the surface, the author's argument appears to be somewhat tenable, but further reflection reveals that the conclusion is not unimpeachable, due to the author's inadequacy to examine the factors that affect people's choice thoroughly.

In the first place, the author's solution rests on the assumption that MC residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any activities is owing to the unclean water. However, the author provides no evidence to support that this is the case, nor offers the author proves of a causal relationship between the dirty river and MC residents' choice. It is highly possible that other factors might contribute to their choice. For example, maybe there are better indoor swimming pools and places for boating and fishing in the city. As a consequence, there is no need for MC residents to go to the river for fun, which is time consuming as well as dangerious relatively. It is also likely that though people in MC love water sports, yet they have little time for enjoying it themselves, for the reason of money, spare time, physique etc... The river's condition besides cleanness, such as intensify of water, the deep and temperature, can also result to the residents' decision. Therefore, the author fails to convince us that just by cleaning up Mason River will the residents come to it for recreational activity.

Secondly, even if the meliorating of the river's condition can change some people's minds and go back to Mason River for recreational activities, the assumption that the MC council need to increase its budget for improvement to the publicly owned lands along the river is unwarranted. There is no evidence that the publicly owned lands along the river does not fits the recreational activities. Lacking such information, we cannnot decide whether it is a must or just a waste to improve the land along the river.

Last but not least, the argument is groundless: Why should people go to Mason River for recreation activities? As the population density upswings in the river area, there is a huge possibility that the pollution of the water will be aggravated. Thus the government will have to spend more money to reverse the trend. Is that what the residents want? Probably not. If they are satisfied with their recreation activities now, why should the government bothered to create a new and consuming place for them?

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it is prudent for the author to assert that MC residents does come to the river for recreation because the water is not clean enough, and that the Mason City (MC)  should raise money to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, in order to increase recreational use of the river of MC residents. To better assess the recommendation, we also need concrete evidence as well to be convinced that the residents in MC are willing to use the river but are hampered by its water condition. Only with more convincing evidence should this argument become more than just a pale appeal.

askmeUID: 2264776

The proposal endorsed by the editorial in the newspaper is that the Mason City (MC) needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, for the purpose of increasing recreational use of the river of MC residents. To justify the statement, the author points out that though water sports is consistently ranked as a favorite form of recreation for MC residents; they seldom use the nearby Mason River for any activities. And he also assumes that it is from the dirty water that prevents the residents. On the surface, the author's argument appears to be somewhat tenable, but further reflection reveals that the conclusion is not unimpeachable, due to the author's inadequacy to examine the factors that affect people's choice thoroughly.
开头长了，建议不要用这种XDF式的冗余开头

In the first place, the author's solution rests on the assumption that MC residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any activities is owing to the unclean water. However, the author provides no evidence to support that this is the case, nor offers the author proves of a causal relationship between the dirty river and MC residents' choice. It is highly possible that other factors might contribute to their choice. 一直到这里，才开始正式的攻击 For example, maybe there are better indoor swimming pools and places for boating and fishing in the city. As a consequence, there is no need for MC residents to go to the river for fun, which is time consuming as well as dangerious relatively. It is also likely that though people in MC love water sports, yet they have little time for enjoying it themselves, for the reason of money, spare time, physique etc...呵呵 能这样写吗 The river's condition besides cleanness, such as intensify of water, the deep and temperature, can also result to the residents' decision. Therefore, the author fails to convince us that just by cleaning up Mason River will the residents come to it for recreational activity.
这个点攻击得不错，只是开头长了

Secondly, even if the meliorating of the river's condition can change some people's minds and go back to Mason River for recreational activities, the assumption that the MC council need to increase its budget for improvement to the publicly owned lands along the river is unwarranted. There is no evidence that the publicly owned lands along the river does not fits the recreational activities. Lacking such information, we cannnot decide whether it is a must or just a waste to improve the land along the river. 论述的不充分，看看gter上面关于这个主题的文章吧

Last but not least, the argument is groundless: Why should people go to Mason River for recreation activities? As the population density upswings in the river area, there is a huge possibility that the pollution of the water will be aggravated. Thus the government will have to spend more money to reverse the trend. Is that what the residents want? Probably not. If they are satisfied with their recreation activities now, why should the government bothered to create a new and consuming place for them? 这个里面和第一个攻击重复了一些

To sum up, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it is prudent for the author to assert that MC residents does come to the river for recreation because the water is not clean enough, and that the Mason City (MC)  should raise money to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, in order to increase recreational use of the river of MC residents. To better assess the recommendation, we also need concrete evidence as well to be convinced that the residents in MC are willing to use the river but are hampered by its water condition. Only with more convincing evidence should this argument become more than just a pale appeal.结尾。。。怎么写都可以，无所谓的

总的来说这篇文章作为第一次限时还是很优秀的，比我的好多了，我写了好多篇才成功限时。结构没问题，只是攻击的深度不够，望加强