Argument137 [CSMY小组]第八次作业

candyganUID: 201665

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: 343   (387 modified)       TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-01-26

提纲：
1、            仅仅根据一些关于偏好游泳的调查和关于水质问题的投诉是不足以说明为什么居民不去河里进行娱乐活动的假设。A>调查不可信，B〉居民不去河里与水质不一定有必然联系，有可能是因为其他更重要的原因：比如河里环境复杂，安全设施不足。

2、            即使水质真与居民的水上活动有关，仅仅一个水质清理计划无法保证河水真能清理干净。

3、即使河水清理干净了，预测结论仍然不能成立。A〉居民更乐于选择其他安全系数高的地方进行水上活动。B〉委员会可能预算资金不够，该项目不是优先考虑的，而安装安全设备列为优先于改善河滩地考虑的项目。


The author claims that the Mason City council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support this claim, the argument draws some evidence and some flawy assumptions. Since the evidence and assumptions are not convincing, the claim is not as sound as it is said.

To begin with, the argument gives an assumption (residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough) that due to the surveys and the complaints about the water quality of the river. Firstly, the data of the surveys is not authentic. There is no data showed that how many residents and what kinds of residents have taken these surveys. Secondly, even though the residents did like the water sports, the water quality may not the main reason why they avoiding the river. Perhaps it is not safe to take water sports on the river: the river is deep and the circumstance is complex, and there is no safe facility.  Thus the assumption is not credible.

Even if the assumption above was authentic, the situation may not be changed by the announcement of the clear-up plans. The announcement is not perfectly leading to a clean river. Perhaps the announcement is lack of practical steps, or perhaps there is lack of found to carry out this plan. Therefore, just a plan is not enough to clean up the river.


Although the river can be cleaned up, the recreational use is not to increase, and the prediction is meaningless. Since residents may prefer to a much safer place (like swimming pool or an artificial lake with safe facility) to carry out the water sports, the cleaned river may still not attract residents, and the recreational use of the river may still not carry out. And even people like doing water sports in the river, the council is more likely to increase its budget for improving the safe facility other than to the publicly owned lands along the river.   

In sum, the argument does not hold water. To support the prediction, the author should give more detailed evidence that the water quality do have a causal relationship with the recreational activities and the plan would go on well, and the budget is available to construct the owned lands along the river.   

自我总结问题：
时态问题. 用一般现在时引出原文攻击。开头固定怎么写？
可信的：credible, creditable, believable, authentic
思路不够流畅，影响写作速度，从而在论证段落内开展论证时间不够。论证语言空洞了点，应该更具体化。

staroceanUID: 2271193

The author claims that the Mason City council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support this claim, the argument draws some evidence and some flawy assumptions. Since the evidence and assumptions are not convincing(这两句合起来说，作者引用的例子和假设都不可靠就好了，要不然前面那句有点太空了。), the claim is not as sound as it is said.

To begin with, the argument gives an assumption (residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough) that due to the surveys and the complaints about the water quality of the river.(这个句子需要改，至少要说unsubstantiated assumption要不然一点错误都没说) Firstly, the data of the surveys is not authentic. There is no data showed that how many residents and what kinds of residents have taken these surveys. Secondly, even though the residents did like the water sports, the water quality may not the main reason why they avoiding the river. Perhaps it is not safe to take water sports on the river: the river is deep and the circumstance is complex, and there is no safe facility.  Thus the assumption is not credible.

Even if the assumption above was authentic, the situation may not be changed by the announcement of the clear-up plans. The announcement is not perfectly leading to a clean river. Perhaps the announcement is lack of practical steps, or perhaps there is lack of found to carry out this plan. Therefore, just a plan is not enough to clean up the river.（这个计划的有效性，其实也可以分层写，1是不是可以被执行，什么时候执行，2就算执行了，是不是能清理干净，能不能达到人们要求的程度。）


Although（Even granted that  这里不能用虽然） the river can be cleaned up, the recreational use is（may be） not to increase, and the prediction is meaningless. Since residents may prefer to a much safer place (like swimming pool or an artificial lake with safe facility) to carry out the water sports(其实这个还是在说人们可能不是因为不干净才不去，角度上和第一段后半部分重复了。而且你不是已经假设了人们就是因为不干净才不去的吗？这里不能这么写呢。要注意全文的让步。), the cleaned river may still not attract residents, and the recreational use of the river may still not carry out. And even(assuming that ) people like doing water sports in the river, the council is more likely to increase its budget for improving the safe facility other than to the publicly owned lands along the river. （这个和题目有点远哦，要说的话也要加几句话）(这里其实可以写，就算活动多了也不一定要增加预算，原来的预算可能够了，而且活动增加也不一定就肯定导致破坏，再有就算这里需要钱，是不是有必要和能力把钱放在这里也有问题，比如我们要不要增加安全措施的建设，社区其他方面的问题。。。突然说个安全让人觉得你的论点更没根据。)   

In sum, the argument does not hold water. To support the prediction, the author should give more detailed evidence that the water quality do have a causal relationship with the recreational activities and the plan would go on well, and the budget is available to construct the owned lands along the river.

我说一点其实没必要说的东西，但是觉得还是有帮助的，你要是看着晕，就别看了，无所谓。
为什么你会重复呢，其实很简单。这里有一个必要充分性的问题。
作者的思路：不干净是导致人们不去的充分必要条件，所以只要干净了就会去，这后面半句其实也是源于必要性得出来的，说得直白一点就是，不干净即完全可以导致人们不去，又是他们不去的唯一原因，所以只要干净了就会去。
要反驳这个只要干净了就会去，就可以用他因法质疑，不干净不是唯一原因。
但是因为你之前也写了不干净不是唯一原因，所以这里就出现了重复。

那么避免的方法也很简单，一般有两种，第一种呢就是在开始的时候要批驳充分性，是不是不干净足以导致人们不去，人们就算抱怨了，可能也不是那么在乎，就算脏点也可以忍着去。但是这道题这里这样不太好写。所以推荐第二种，就是一开始攻击必要性，但是后面换个角度来说。其实这道题有个漏洞，因为他说很长时间人们不去了，所以在后面说干净了也不一定去的时候可以说，长时间的变化，使人们更喜欢并且忠实于其他地方的。。。而且这么长时间了，很可能一些专业的游泳。。。设施建起来了，这样也就能批了。总之还是要注意一点，另外还要更仔细的看题目。

似乎是有没话可说的感觉，那么建议呢，练一点中文提纲，往详细了写，别就写一个错误，然后再注意段内的分层和整体结构。应该长进很快。

[ 本帖最后由 starocean 于 2007-1-28 01:45 编辑 ]

candyganUID: 201665

十分谢谢你中肯的建议！辛苦你了！最近忽视了分析和研究范文，写的时候的确没怎么好好列提纲就扒拉扒拉写了，自己也觉得写得不好呢，今天待会儿再重新写这篇。

candyganUID: 201665

The author claims that the Mason City(MC) council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.To support this claim, the author draws some unconvincing evidence and assumptions, thus the claim is not as sound as it is said.

To begin with, the argument gives an unsubstantiated assumption (residents must be avoiding the river merely because they think that it is not clean enough) that due to the surveys and the complaints about the water quality of the river. Firstly, the data of the surveys is not authentic. There is no data showed that how many residents and what kinds of residents have taken these surveys. Maybe several surveys are just take to the residents  [空洞了点,是不是这个地方不攻击更好？] Secondly, even though the residents did like the water sports, the water quality may not the main reason why they avoiding the river. Perhaps it is not safe to take water sports on the river: the river is too deep, the water flows fast and the circumstance is complex, and there is no safe facility. Or perhaps the weather in MC (with high temperature most of the year) does not allow people there to take recreational activities on the river. If either is the case, the assumption is not credible.

Even if the assumption above was authentic, the situation may not be changed by the announcement of the clear-up plans. On one hand, whether this announcement is executable is suspectable. Perhaps the announcement is lack of practical steps, or perhaps there is lack of found to carry out this plan. On the other hand, even the plan can be carried out, the river is still dirty. It is very likely that there are heavy industries nearby the river and the pollution is still going during the process of cleaning the river. If that is the case, just cleaning cannot ensure a cleaned river. Therefore, it cannot be ensured to clean up the river by mere a plan, to say nothing of the recreational use of the river.

Even granted that the river can be cleaned up in a soon time, the recreational use may be not to increase. Since the fact that seldom residents now take this river as a recreational place, it is likely that they are used to take such activities in other places such like swimming bath and holiday village. And compared with other available places, the river is not the choice for most of residents.

At last but not the least, even though the recreational use of the river is to increase, the increased budget from MC council is not necessarily to be located on the publicly owned land along the river. Whether there is sufficient money on this aspect is questionable, especially account to other more urgent things concerning the river: such as reducing the pollution from the river, improving the safety facility and so forth. Besides, it may be with little effect to use such budget to cater to people’s leisure needs. The more likely is that residents who play in the river do not care much about the along-river land. Thus, unless there is undoubted evidence indicating that the MC does have enough money and it is a necessary to locate money on this thing, the prediction is not convincing.
In sum, the argument does not hold water. To support the prediction, the author should give more detailed evidence that the water quality do have a causal relationship with the recreational activities and the plan would go on well, and besides the budget is available and necessarily to construct the owned lands along the river.

[ 本帖最后由 candygan 于 2007-1-29 19:52 编辑 ]