argument137 哭着求拍!

xuehuihopeUID: 2154365

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: 360          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2006-3-2

The arguer's view seems to be sound and convincing at first glance that Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for recreational activity, because of the low quality of the water in the river. So Mason City council should increase imputes for improvements to protect the lands along the Mason City. However, this argument can hardly give further consideration due to several critical flaws in it.
To begin with, Mason City residents reduce their recreation activity in water can not show that the river has been seriously polluted so that the residents can not have their favorite water sports. It is entirely possible that these outdoor sports cannot be well developed in the winter, the water has been frozen. The arguer does not provide solid information to support this cause relationship between decrease of water sports and pollution in the river.
Even if it is granted that serious pollution in the river prevent people do some water sports, another assumption must be made before we can conclude that if the water in the Mason River have been clean up, the recreational use of the river will be increased. It is possible that the water sport never popular in this year, people have more interest in the other kinds of sports, basketball, football, and so forth. Perhaps people who deal water sports as a favorite form of recreation has also changed their original interest. So, even if the council focus their energy and money on protecting the lands along the Mason River, recreational use of the river would hardly increase.
Furthermore, if the quality of the water in the river have really been polluted, it is useless only improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The government should make a series of regulations to protect this river.
In conclusion, the argument is ruined with the above flaws. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should provide more sound evidence to support that the resident seldom use the river to do some water exercise due to the pollution in the river, and if the council increase their attention to protect this river, the recreational use river will be increased

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-3-2 18:40 编辑 ]

xuehuihopeUID: 2154365

希望大家多拍拍把
我现在都已经在绝望边缘了
给点建议把please!
写的不好,就站出来批

jackloveUID: 183611

The arguer's view seems to be sound and convincing at first glance that Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for recreational activity, because of the low quality of the water in the river. So Mason City council should increase imputes for improvements to protect the lands along the Mason City. However, this argument can hardly give further consideration due to several critical flaws in it.

To begin with, Mason City residents reduce their recreation activity in water can not show that the river has been seriously polluted so that the residents can not have their favorite water sports.这个句子的主谓不对。the fact that .... do not demonstrate that .....所以你还是把这个句子拆开，太长了 It is entirely possible that these outdoor sports cannot be well developed in the winter, the water has been frozen. 太单薄了点，在加个可能性The arguer does not provide solid information to support this cause relationship between decrease of water sports and pollution in the river.

Even if it is granted that serious pollution in the river prevent people prevent from doing do some water sports, another assumption must be made before we can conclude that if the water in the Mason River have been clean up, the recreational use of the river will be increased. It is possible that the water sport never popular in this year, people have more interest in the other kinds of sports, basketball, football, and so forth. Perhaps people who deal water sports as a favorite form of recreation has also changed their original interest. 上面两句话读起来有点费解So, even if the council focus their energy and money on protecting the lands along the Mason River, recreational use of the river would hardly increase.
so--〉therefore

Furthermore, if the quality of the water in the river have really been polluted, it is useless only improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The government should make a series of regulations to protect this river.
推理问题

In conclusion, the argument is ruined with the above flaws. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should provide more sound evidence to support that the resident seldom use the river to do some water exercise due to the pollution in the river, and if the council increase their attention to protect this river, the recreational use river will be increased

建议：去看范文吧，别急，先分析范文先！
  整体来说，你说的有点乱了

gloriousUID: 2117311

另，粗略的看了一下，cause relationship 的用法有待商榷，第一个反驳的理由牵强了一点，词汇量表现得太少，字数也欠缺。