argument137 jingjing作业（我提速了，开心！）

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

TOPIC：ARGUMENT 137 - 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."


提纲：
1 投诉与市民的活动减少没有直接因果关系（投诉是否反映真实情况？是否对所以喜欢water amusement的市民心理上造成影响？没有证据（或调查）表明市民的想法（水质差不活动）
2 即使水质变差，相关机构的announcement会使市民重新恢复水上娱乐活动吗?(没有plan的具体内容，是否有效呢？是否被认真执行了呢？政府是否有足够资金进行clean up呢？)
3 即使河水干净了，市民的水上活动一定会增加吗？（天气很冷，水位太低，鱼很少）即使增加有必要增加budget吗？可能有很多的pleasure ground/amusement parks 改善公用土地一定会增加娱乐活动吗？可能其它活动增加了，水上娱乐没增加
4 survey的样本的代表性？是否够大？随机？可能市民的娱乐活动已经发生变化（climbing, basketball, football, extreme sports and etc.

In this editorial, the author suggests that Mason City need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. However, after close scrutiny, I find that the argument is not cogent as it stands.

First of all, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the complaints about the quality of the water in the river and the decline of residents' recreational activity. Perhaps there is a correlation between the two facets but in itself cannot prove such a cause-and-effect relationship. And we are not informed whether the complaints reflect the real water condition of the Mason river and we also do not know how these complaints influence the psychology of residents. Maybe they just consider it has no business with holding their amusement activities on the river. Thus, without the investigation of the qualification of the water in the river, the author cannot hastily assume that the decrease of residents' recreational activities is attributable to the complaints.

Even assuming the uncleanness of the river is one of the important reasons for citizen's few activity, the author's inference that the announcement by the agency who is responsible for the river will increase the recreational use of the river is still unwarranted. The author provides no concrete information about the up-coming plans. So we have sufficient reasons to suspect its effectiveness and efficiency. Moreover, even though the plans are effective to make the river clean, it still begs the questions: can it be validly carried out? Will the local people be respondent to it? Without this information, the author's conclusion cannot persuade me whatsoever.

Even if the water in Mason river were clean up due to the effective ( just suppose so ) plans, will the entertainment activities on the river ultimately increase? Negative. It is entirely possible that it is too cold for citizens to hold any activities-maybe the river is frozen, or maybe the level of the water in the river is too low for boating in consideration of the tiny rainfall. Furthermore, is it necessary for the local council to increase the budget for ameliorating the lands along the river? Of course not. It is highly possible that there are sufficient pleasure grounds for the amusement with the river. Without considering and ruling out these and other scenarios, the author cannot draw the conclusion that the improvement of the lands along the river would facilitate the increase usage of it.

The last but not the least, the result of the surveys cited by the author is statistically unreliable. They can lend little credit support to the argument because the author provides no information about the size and the randomness of their sample. Therefore, it cannot represent the opinions from all the residents who consider the recreational activities as their hobbies? Otherwise, it is entirely possible that there is a transformation among people who like recreational amusement on the river-they may shift their habits to some other activities, for instance, climbing, extreme sports, basketball or football and etc. If this is the case, then it would absolutely serve to refute the author's suggestion that by cleaning the water in the river and increasing the budget their water entertainment the activities on the river would increase.

To sum up, all the evidence that the author quoted lend scant credible support to this argument. To strengthen it, the author should substantiate the causal relationship between the complaints and the decreased activities and also provide us convincing surveys about the residents’ concerning.

不知道批判点和细节方面想的是不是全面，请大家指教！（今天突然提速了，真开心！^_^ 觉得argument的论证内容还是皈依模板的好（开头和结尾自便），否则肯定写不完。

@amy@UID: 209096

In this editorial, the author suggests that Mason City need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. However, after close scrutiny, I find that the argument is not cogent as it stands.

First of all, the author fails to establish the causal relationship between the complaints about the quality of the water in the river and the decline of residents' recreational activity.[这里需要注意一下，题目中没有说decline吧？只是说了seldom use而已，也许一直都是这样的] Perhaps there is a correlation between the two facets but in itself [这种说法对吗？itself指代什么？] cannot prove such a cause-and-effect relationship. And we are not informed whether the complaints reflect the real water condition of the Mason river[River] and we also do not know how these complaints influence the psychology of residents. [你这里的意思是居民的投诉影响了居民的心理，可是这些投诉本来就是来自于居民啊~ 我觉得应该没有这层意思，应该就是因为居民有意见，所以不愿意来了]Maybe they just consider it[这里的it又是指代什么呢] has no business with holding their amusement activities on the river. Thus, without the investigation of the qualification of the water in the river,[仅仅去调查水质就可以了吗？你这段不只是说了这个啊] the author cannot hastily assume that the decrease of residents' recreational activities is attributable to the complaints.

Even assuming the uncleanness of the river is one of the important reasons for citizen's few activity[activities][这里是不是也要指明一下是什么activity?], the author's inference that the announcement by the agency who is responsible for the river will increase the recreational use of the river is still unwarranted. The author provides no concrete information about the up-coming plans. So we have sufficient reasons to suspect its effectiveness and efficiency. Moreover, even though the plans are effective to make the river clean, it still begs the questions: can it be validly carried out? Will the local people be respondent to it? Without this information, the author's conclusion cannot persuade me whatsoever.

Even if the water in Mason river[River] were clean [cleaned] up due to the effective ( just suppose so ) [左括号后面和右括号前面不用空格] plans, will the entertainment activities on the river ultimately increase? Negative. It is entirely possible that it is too cold for citizens to hold any activities-maybe the river is frozen,[结冰、太冷应该只是某些季节吧？好像不太有说服力] or maybe the level of the water in the river is too low for boating in consideration of the tiny rainfall. Furthermore, is it necessary for the local council to increase the budget for ameliorating the lands along the river? Of course not. It is highly possible that there are sufficient pleasure grounds for the amusement with the river. Without considering and ruling out these and other scenarios, the author cannot draw the conclusion that the improvement of the lands along the river would facilitate the increase usage of it.[后面的半句好像有点偏....]

The[去掉the] last but not the least, the result of the surveys cited by the author is statistically unreliable. They can lend little credit support to the argument because the author provides no information about the size and the randomness of their sample. Therefore, it cannot[应该只是怀疑能不能代表吧？不能直接说不能] represent the opinions from all the residents who consider the recreational activities as their hobbies? Otherwise, it is entirely possible that there is a transformation among people who like recreational amusement on the river-they may shift their habits to some other activities, for instance, climbing, extreme sports, basketball or football and etc.[嗯，这点我开始还想到了，写的时候就忘了，呵呵] If this is the case, then it would absolutely serve to refute the author's suggestion that by cleaning the water in the river and increasing the budget their water entertainment the activities on the river would increase.

To sum up, all the evidence that the author quoted lend scant credible support to this argument. To strengthen it, the author should substantiate the causal relationship between the complaints and the decreased activities and also provide us convincing surveys about the residents’ concerning.

呵呵，对这篇好想拍得狠了点:$主要是第一个驳斥点问题比较大

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

1 in itself 这种说法对吗？itself指代什么？
指代correlation 我的意思是这种联系correlation 它本身in in itself不能代表causal relationship
2 how these complaints influence the psychology of residents. [你这里的意思是居民的投诉影响了居民的心理，可是这些投诉本来就是来自于居民啊~ 我觉得应该没有这层意思，
我的意思是the quality of water in the river影响了居民的心理，不好意思表达错误:L
3 it[这里的it又是指代什么呢]
不好意思，是水质
4 仅仅去调查水质就可以了吗？你这段不只是说了这个啊
先调查，再改善嘛！^_^5 这里是不是也要指明一下是什么activity?],
汗，我忘了，是recreational activities
6  ( just suppose so ) [左括号后面和右括号前面不用空格]
再汗！
7  cannot[应该只是怀疑能不能代表吧？不能直接说不能
那我应该怎么说呢？

amy呀amy, 我。。。。。冷冷清清，戚戚惨惨漆漆，不过好在我海纳百川，有容乃大，所以当然是要谢你拉！！^_^这里没有花，送你一束草吧，《－*呵呵

[ 本帖最后由 jingjingtous 于 2006-1-23 23:10 编辑 ]

@amy@UID: 209096

嘿嘿，嘻嘻~~~

7、可以说I wonder whether it can ...