ARGUMENT137 请狠拍!

wenyuZUID: 2113611

In this editorial, the arguer claims that recreational use of the Mason River is likely to increase, which requires the Mason City council to place more budget to improve to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To justify this conclusion, he cites a plan intended to clean up the river and people's interest in water sports. Convincing as it might sound, it cannot bear further reflection.

First, the argument is based on several unwarranted assumptions. For example, just because a plan is announced does not necessarily mean that the situation of the river will be better as people expect. We may ask: How was this plan made? Did the region consider all the factors that may undermine its validity? Is it practical? Or can it make sure that pollution will never return to the river in the future? Without taking all these scenarios into consideration, it is unfairly to make such assumption.

Another point is that the evidence cited in the analysis does not strongly support the arguer's claim. According to a survey, the arguer claims that recreational use of the river is to increase, but this may not be the case. It is entirely possible that Mason River is not fit for water sports. Perhaps it is not large enough. Or perhaps it is too rapid. In addition, there may be many other rivers which are much easier to get to and more familiar to residents. It is also likely that places nearby the Mason River are also polluted just like the river. Unless the arguer can provide further evidence showing that the quality of the river is the only factor that keeps people away, I will not be swayed by his statement that recreational use of the river will increase due to more financial supports.

Even if the complainers are dissatisfied only with the quality of the water in the river, we will still ask whether these people are in the majority. Maybe a myriad of residents consider the water to be of high quality, and feel it not necessary to improve. Therefore, the proponent’s suggestion may do attract a small group of people, but this may not make much difference.

Finally, the arguer hastily concludes that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. This conclusion is problematic in at least tow respects. First, it fails to show us whether there are already enough public facilities along the river. If so, it would be a waste of money to build more. Second, we do not know whether such improvement is profitable or imperative. If not, budget should used to solve other current issue of the society, such as unemployment, famine, the increasing gap between the poor and the rich, and so forth.

In sum, the argument is not credible as it stands, because the assumption that the arguer makes is groundless and the evidence is suspicious. To bolster the argument, the arguer would at least have to provide clear evidence that the increasing budget will benefit the society.

请各位朋友狠拍!
谢谢!留链必回!

ciceUID: 2140424

In this editorial, the arguer claims that recreational use of the Mason River is likely to increase, which requires the Mason City council to place more budget to improve to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To justify this conclusion, he cites a plan intended to clean up the river and people's interest in water sports. Convincing as it might soundseem,however it cannot bear further reflection.

First, the argument is based on several unwarranted assumptions. For example, just because a plan the fact that a plan is announced does not necessarily mean that the situation of the river will be better as people expect. We may ask: How was this plan made? Did the region consider all the factors that may undermine its validity? Is it practical? Or can it make sure that pollution will never return to the river in the future? Without taking all these scenarios into consideration, it is unfairly to make such assumption.这么多问句，最好能展开一点谈可能

Another point is that the evidence cited in the analysis does not strongly support the arguer's claim. According to athe survey, the arguer claims that recreational use of the river is to increase, but this may not be the case. It is entirely possible that Mason River is not fit for water sports. Perhaps it is not large enough. Or perhaps it is too rapid. In addition, there may be many other rivers which are much easier to get to and more familiar to residents. It is also likely that places nearby the Mason River are also polluted just like the river.这句话什么作用？ Unless the arguer can provide further evidence showing that the quality of the river is the only factor that keeps people away, I will not be swayed by his statement that recreational use of the river will increase due to more financial supports.

Even if the complainers are dissatisfied only with the quality of the water in the river, we will still ask whether these people are in the majority. Maybe a myriad of residents consider the water to be of high quality, and feel it not necessary to improve. Therefore, the proponent’s suggestion may do attract a small group of people, but this may not make much difference. 质疑complaints的代表性。个别人认为水质不好，大部分人认为水质好。还是感觉有点抽象，说服力不很强，能举个例子吗？

Finally, the arguer hastily concludes that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. This conclusion is problematic in at least tow respects. First, it fails to show us whether there are already enough public facilities along the river. If so, it would be a waste of money to build more. Second, we do not know whether such improvement is profitable or imperative. If not, budget should used to solve other current issue of the society, such as unemployment, famine, the increasing gap between the poor and the rich, and so forth.这段很好

In sum, the argument is not credible as it stands, because the assumption that the arguer makes is groundless and the evidence is suspicious. To bolster the argument, the arguer would at least have to provide clear evidence that the increasing budget will benefit the society.

对announcement的攻击最好能放到非水质说之后。语言好，大错误都找对了。