argument137【kito组智恩的作业】谢谢拍！！

智恩UID：2160717

137.The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper. 【总频率21】
"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."
【提纲】
1 没有指出调查的时间，如果是很久以前的调查呢？以及调查的范围，代表性？
2 投诉不一定是不去活动的原因 没有提供在以前水质好时是不是人们都到这里来玩，即使水质好时来玩，也可能是找到了更好的地方娱乐
3 即使河干净了，也不一定recreational use 会increase；宣布了计划就一定会改善？如果污染严重的话，不是短时间能改善的；而且治理河流污染与增加Mason的河岸publicly owned lands之间没啥联系
【正文】
This argument is basically a proposition to increase the government's budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The author uses surveys and points out the plans to clean up this river by the agency to support his or her claim. However the evidence is deficient in logic and not cogent.

First of all, the representative of surveys quoted by the author is dubious. To begin with, the author fails to point out the date of these surveys. If the surveys were conducted several years ago, the result of the surveys could not represent the current hobbies of the region's residents. Perhaps residents' recreation form has been varied. Besides how many people participate in the survey and whether the survey is random sampling are unknown. If the sample is not sufficiently enough, the conclusion drawn from the surveys can not represent whole region’s hobby situation. Also we can not eliminate such a possibility that people who like water sports are more inclined to accept the survey than others and if so, the hobby survey is tendentious. Without detailed information about the cited surveys, the result of the survey is untenable.

Secondly, complaints about the quality of the water in river might be merely one of the reasons that why people seldom use the nearby Mason River for creational activity recently. The author fails to provide information about the frequency of creational activity in Mason River when the river is clean. Unless the author offers the comparison of activity frequencies of the clean river and the later polluted river, moreover there is an obvious discrepancy between these two conditions, it is incredible to infer that the polluted river makes people avoid using the river. Even if the quality of the river is improved, it is entirely possible that people would not use the river for creation because they find other place for creation which tends to be more convenient. Therefore the quality of the river is not the only reason for the absence of using the river.

Finally, the author commits a fallacy that the plan by the agency to clean up the river could be achieved. First there is no information offered to guarantee the plan's success. If the river has been severe polluted, it is difficult to make it clean as original in a short period. What is more, there is no correlated relationship between cleaning river and improving the publicly owned lands. The author does not explain the necessary requirement to improve the publicly owned lands. If there are no adequate reasons for improving the publicly owned lands, it is unreasonable to increase the government budgets. Furthermore even if the river becomes originally clean, no evidence is provided to assure the increasing use of the river for recreation.

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To make it better to convince, the author should provide definite and detailed information about the surveys to guarantee the effectiveness of the quoted surveys. In addition, to strengthen it, we need to know the quality of the river is the determinant to whether use the river as recreational place or not. Last the author must provide a specific plan to clean up the river in order to assure the feasibility of the plan and the predicting success of the plan.

kito9695UID：209685

argument137【kito组智恩的作业】谢谢拍！！

137.The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper. 【总频率21】
"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."
【提纲】
1 没有指出调查的时间，如果是很久以前的调查呢？以及调查的范围，代表性？
2 投诉不一定是不去活动的原因 没有提供在以前水质好时是不是人们都到这里来玩，即使水质好时来玩，也可能是找到了更好的地方娱乐
3 即使河干净了，也不一定recreational use 会increase；宣布了计划就一定会改善？如果污染严重的话，不是短时间能改善的；而且治理河流污染与增加Mason的河岸publicly owned lands之间没啥联系这段一下包含了三个批驳点，可以再分一段啊
【正文】
This argument is basically a proposition to increase the government's budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The author uses surveys and points out the plans to clean up this river by the agency to support his or her claim. However the evidence is deficient in logic and not cogent学习ing.开头不错，简单总结argument

First of all, the representative of surveys quoted by the author is dubious. To begin with, the author fails to point out the date光说date感觉不太好，还不如用when the surveys were taken of these surveys. If the surveys were conducted several years ago, the result of the surveys could not represent the current hobbies指泛泛爱好，这里应该说是对运动的喜好 of the region's residents. Perhaps residents' recreation form has been varied. 这句residents recreation form并不等于爱好的运动阿，没有说服力Besides how many people participate in the survey and whether the survey is random sampling学习ing are unknown. If the sample is not sufficientlysufficient enough, the conclusion drawn from the surveys can not represent whole region’s hobby situation?去掉. Also we can not eliminate such a possibility that people who like water sports are more inclined to accept the survey than others and if so, the hobby survey is tendentious. Without detailed information about the cited surveys, the result of the survey is untenable.恩，句式很多变很地道，词汇也丰富，智恩，进步很大啊，加油！！

Secondly, complaints about the quality of the water in river might be merely one of the reasons恩，这个说法很严密，留有余地，学习ing that why people seldom use the nearby Mason River for creational activity recently. The author fails to provide information about the frequency of creational activity in Mason River when the river is clean. Unless the author offers the comparison of activity frequencies of the clean river and the later polluted river, moreover there is an obvious discrepancy between these two conditions恩，可以把这样一句话插在两个分句间么？？, it is incredible to infer that the polluted river makes people avoid using the river. Even if the quality of the river is improved, it is entirely possible that people would not use the river for creation because they find other places for creation which tends to be more convenient. Therefore the quality of the river is not the only reason for the absence of using the river.

Finally, the author commits a fallacy that the plan by the agency to clean up the river could be achieved这句主干是the plan could be achieved，应该是believing that the plan could be surly achieved. First there is no information offered to guarantee the plan's success. If the river has been severe polluted, it is difficult to make it clean as original in a short period. What is more, there is no correlated relationship between cleaning river and improving the publicly owned lands. The author does not explain the necessary requirement to improve the publicly owned lands. If there are no adequate reasons for improving the publicly owned lands, it is unreasonable to increase the government budgets. Furthermore even if the river becomes originally clean, no evidence is provided to assure the increasing use of the river for recreation.这句还应展开说下理由

To sum up, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To make it better 去掉to convinced, the author should provide definite and detailed information about the surveys to guarantee the effectiveness of the quoted surveys. In addition, to strengthen it, we need to know whether the quality of the river is the determinant to 去掉whether use the river as recreational place or not. Last the author must provide a specific plan to clean up the river in order to assure the feasibility of the plan and the predicting success of the plan.

写的很好了，狂赞一个！！！

dganggangUID：2125101

改过了？
不过好像就如楼上这样 没有太大意见

智恩UID：2160717

谢谢小别！辛苦你了      :D

可是不明白为什么最后一段的那个whether要去掉，不是和后面的or not 对应吗？

[ 本帖最后由 智恩 于 2006-1-25 00:36 编辑 ]

智恩UID：2160717

好生改了一下，没改之前请一个考过的朋友看过，朋友说写得很不深入，的确让我紧张了一下，因为那已经是我目前最好的水平了

This argument is basically a proposition to increase the government's budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The author uses surveys and points out the plans to clean up this river by the agency to support his or her claim. However the evidence is deficient in logic and not cogent.

First of all, the representative of surveys quoted by the author is dubious. To begin with, the author fails to point out when the surveys were conducted. If the surveys were conducted several years ago, the result of the surveys could not represent that the current residents still enjoy water sports. Perhaps residents do water sports according to the weather. If the temperature is low, it is unlikely for residents to go out for water sports. Besides how many people participate in the survey and whether the survey is random sampling are unknown. If the subjects for the surveys were not randomly chosen, the result of the surveys could not represent a diverse cross section of the population of Mason City residents’ inclination of water sports. Also we can not eliminate such a possibility that people who like water sports are more inclined to accept the survey than others and if so, the recreation survey is tendentious. Without detailed information about the cited surveys, it is impossible to assess the reliability of the surveys’ result.

Secondly, complaints about the quality of the water in river might be merely one of the reasons that why people seldom use the nearby Mason River for creational activity recently. The author fails to provide information about the frequency of creational activity in Mason River when the river is clean. Unless the author offers the comparison of activity frequencies of the clean river and the later polluted river, moreover there is an obvious discrepancy between these two conditions, it is incredible to infer that the polluted river makes people avoid using the river. Even if the quality of the river is improved, it is entirely possible that people would not use the river for recreation because they find other place for recreation which tends to be more convenient. Therefore the quality of the river is not the only reason for the absence of using the river.

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that the plan by the agency to clean up the river could be achieved. First there is no information offered to guarantee the plan's success. If the river has been severe polluted, it is difficult to make it clean as original in a short period. What is more, there is no correlated relationship between cleaning river and improving the publicly owned lands. The author does not explain the necessary requirement to ameliorate the publicly owned lands. If there are no adequate reasons for improving the publicly owned lands, it is unreasonable to increase the government budgets. Furthermore even if the river becomes originally clean, no evidence is provided to assure the increasing use of the river for recreation. Perhaps people have found other place for recreation or whether it is an appropriate place for water sports. All of the possibilities listed above would undermine the author’s assumption.

To sum up, before make his or her recommendation, the author should provide definite and detailed information about the surveys to guarantee the validity of the quoted surveys. In addition, we need to know whether the quality of the river is the determinant to use the river as a recreational place or not. Last the author must provide a specific plan to clean up the river in order to assure the feasibility of the plan and the predicting success of the plan.

[ 本帖最后由 智恩 于 2006-1-29 15:08 编辑 ]

kito9695UID：209685

原帖由 智恩 于 2006-1-24 22:45 发表
谢谢小别！辛苦你了      :D

可是不明白为什么最后一段的那个whether要去掉，不是和后面的or not 对应吗？

嘿嘿，当时读的有点别拗，在前面加了whether，把后面的去掉了~
我还是觉得你改过的那句话读起来不顺畅，你再研究研究~~我觉得whether要加在前面哈~~

[ 本帖最后由 kito9695 于 2006-1-25 00:50 编辑 ]