argument137 [076G飞跃小组]joyce8512第五次作业

joyce8512UID: 2263806

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."
字数：502

In this editorial, the arguer suggests that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To reach this conclusion, the arguer cites the fact that the agency has announced plans to clean up Mason River, hence the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. In addition, the arguer also points out that it is because of the bad quality of Mason River that residents seldom use it for recreational activity at this time. As reasonable as this argument seems at first glance, it is flawed in several aspects.

To begin with, the sample of the survey conducted by Mason City is too vague to be convincing. We are not told anything about the quantity, gender, age, and occupation with respect to the sample. Perhaps there are only ten people accept the survey, or perhaps the people who are interested in water sports are more willing to answer the inquiry—both of which will make the survey unrepresentative. Hence, the premise that presidents of Mason City are fond of water recreation is still open to doubt.

Another problem that weakens the arguer above is that the arguer fails to take into account several other relevant factors that may influence the use of Mason River. The fact that there have been complaints about the quality of the water in Mason River does not indicate the fact that it is the bad condition of Mason River that results in the few usage. It is quite possible that the water of Mason River is not deep or large enough for water sports, then residents will choose another place to have water pastime. Therefore, the deduction of the arguer is imperious.

Last but not least, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. Even if the bad quality of water in Mason Water contribute to the fact that few people use it for entertainment, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow the fact that the recreational use of Mason River will truly increase only because of the plans the agency has announced. First, are the plans really effective? Secondly, even though the plans do improve the condition of Mason City, will more residents attracted by it? Thirdly, even if more people will have water sports in Mason River, does it necessary to increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands nearby? Lacking solid information concerning the problems mentioned above, the assertion to increase the budget is unsound.

To sum up, the conclusion rests on a series of doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To reinforce the argument, the arguer must provide clear evidence that residents do not use Mason River for entertainment is own to its unsatisfied quality. To better evaluate this argument, the arguer must assure us that the plans of the agency will effective to change the situation of Mason River, and then more residents will be interested in the recreational activity there.

zengyouwenUID: 2284999

argument137 [076G飞跃小组]joyce8512第五次作业 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." 字数：502 In this editorial, the arguer suggests that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To reach this conclusion, the arguer cites the fact that the agency has announced plans to clean up Mason River, hence the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. In addition, the arguer also points out that it is because of the bad quality of Mason River that residents seldom use it for recreational activity at this time. As reasonable as this argument seems at first glance, it is flawed in several aspects. To begin with, the sample of the survey conducted by Mason City is too vague to be convincing. We are not told anything about the quantity, gender, age, and occupation with respect to the sample. Perhaps there are only ten people accept the survey, or perhaps the people who are interested in water sports are more willing to answer the inquiry—both of which will make the survey unrepresentative. Hence, the premise that presidents(residents,千万不能错啊，:) 一字之差啊，差之毫厘，失之千里) of Mason City are fond of water recreation is still open to doubt. Another problem that weakens the arguer（argument） above is that the arguer fails to take into account several other relevant factors that may influence the use of Mason River. The fact that there have been complaints about the quality of the water in Mason River does not indicate the fact（最好还是去掉吧，因为这个可能不是事实哦） that it is the bad condition of Mason River that results in the few usage. It is quite possible that the water of Mason River is not deep or large enough for water sports, then residents will choose another place to have water pastime. Therefore, the deduction of the arguer is imperious. Last but not least, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. Even if the bad quality of water in Mason Water contribute to the fact that few people use it for entertainment, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, it does not follow the fact that the recreational use of Mason River will truly increase only because of the plans the agency has announced. First, are the plans really effective? Secondly, even though the plans do improve the condition of Mason City, will more residents attracted by it? Thirdly, even if more people will have water sports in Mason River, does（is） it necessary to increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands nearby? Lacking solid information concerning the problems mentioned above, the assertion to increase the budget is unsound.（连续三个问句，精彩之极:handshake ） To sum up, the conclusion rests on a series of doubtful assumptions that render it unconvincing as it stands. To reinforce the argument, the arguer must provide clear evidence that residents do not use Mason River for entertainment is own to（注意：owe to，owing to 归因于（Owing to如同 because of或 on account of一样，是个介词，只能引导副词短语） /own to承认 ） its unsatisfied quality. To better evaluate this argument, the arguer must assure us that the plans of the agency will effective to change the situation of Mason River, and then more residents will be interested in the recreational activity there.

结构＆句型反面问题没啥，就是一点小的细节问题，个人感觉在5+，可不能骄傲啊，继续加油