argument137 vivien 4月作文小组3月26日作业

vivien3773UID：2308910

argument137 vivien 4月作文小组3月26日作业谢谢修改，辛苦。

137The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.

"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River forany kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region'sresidents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as afavorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the qualityof the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because theythink that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: theagency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean upMason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, sothe Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to thepublicly owned lands along the Mason River."


137

In this argument, the author reaches the conclusion that after announcing plans to clean up
Mason River(MR) by the agency responsible for rivers in this region, the residents will make
more use of the revier for recreation and the Mason City council will need to invest more money
to improvement the lansd along the MR. To support this conclusion, the author cites the result of
some survey showing that the recreation in the river is favorated by Mason City(MC)'s residents.
And the author alos points out that because of the quality of the water in the river, the residents
avoid to the river. As discussed bellow, the argument suffers from several critical flaws and
is therefore unconvincing.

First of all, the author fails to provide some informations about the survies to make us believe
them. It is possible that only 10 residents joined in the survies who's attitude can not
represent the opinion of the whole residents. Or perhaps that only people in their 40 or 50 ages
become the subjects of the survies who's opinion also can not represent all the residents' thought.
Without accounting and ruling out the possibilities, the author can not use the result of these
survies to demonstrate that the residents in this area consistently favorite recreation in the
river.

Second, even if the residents of MC like the recreation in the MR,the mere fact that some conplaints
about the quality of the water in the river is insufficient
to draw the conclusion that the quality of the river leading to people's avoiding river. It is entirly
possible that only a litter people dissatisfied with the quality of the water that alomst all residents did not
care about the water's qualtiy. Or some other factors resulted in people's avoid. For example, the dangerous surge in the
river, the violent fish in the river and so on. Since the author overlookes these possible explanations
that he can not asserts that the reason why people avoiding the river is the quality of the river.

Third, even it is true that the quality of the water prevent people's recreation, the plans announced
by the agency is unwarranted effective. May be the plans were not conformed by the residents of this
area, or may be this plan had been conformed but not conformed well to reach the standard of
making the water clean. Lacking informations about the effectiveness of this plan, it is
sheer folly to infer that it will improve the quality MR.

Finally, even more people begin to use MR, it is insufficient to justiy that the budget should
be increased to improve of the lands along the MR. The author did not consider the possibility
that the lands along the MR had already been improved that there is no need to use more money to
improve it. Or some individuals desided to invest money to improve these lands.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is not well supported. To make this argument
more persuasive, the author should provide more concerte evidences to demonstrate that the residents
of MC consistantly like recreations in the river, the quality of the water in the river prevent
people's recreation, the plan of the agency is effective and the lands along the MR need to be
improved by the government.

寂寞樱花UID：2306511

In this argument, the author reaches the conclusion that after announcing plans to clean up Mason River(MR) by the agency responsible for rivers in this region, the residents will make more use of the revier for recreation and the Mason City council will need to invest more money to improvement the lansd(lands) along the MR. To support this conclusion, the author cites the result of some surveys showing that the recreation in the river is favorated by Mason City(MC)'s residents.And the author alos(also) points out that because of the quality of the water in the river, the residents avoid to the river.(And the author also points out why the residennts avoid to the river is the quality of the water.) As discussed bellow(below), the argument suffers from several critical flaws and is therefore unconvincing.

First of all, the author fails to provide some(any) informations(information) about the survies(surveys) to make us believe them. It is possible that only 10 residents joined in the survies(surveys) who's attitude can not represent the opinion of the whole residents. Or perhaps that only people in their 40 or 50 ages become the subjects of the survies(surveys) who's opinion also can not represent all the residents' thought.Without accounting and ruling out the possibilities, the author can not use the result of these survies(surveys) to demonstrate that the residents in this area consistently favorite recreation in the river.

Second, even if the residents of MC like the recreation in the MR,the mere fact that some conplaints about the quality of the water in the river is insufficient to draw the conclusion that the quality of the river leading to people's avoiding river. It is entirly possible that only a litter(little) people dissatisfied with the quality of the water that(while) alomst all residents did not care about the water's qualtiy. Or some other factors resulted in people's avoid. For example, the dangerous surge in the river, the violent fish in the river and so on. Since the author overlookes these possible explanations that he can not asserts that the reason why people avoiding the river is the quality of the river.

Third, even it is true that the quality of the water prevent people's recreation, the plans announced by the agency is unwarranted effectively. May be the plans were not conformed by the residents of this area, or may be this plan had been conformed but not conformed well to reach the standard of making the water clean. Lacking informations about the effectiveness of this plan, it is
sheer folly to infer that it will improve the quality MR.

Finally, even more people begin to use MR, it is insufficient to justiy that the budget should be increased to improve of the lands along the MR. The author did not consider the possibility that the lands along the MR had already been improved that there is no need to use more money to improve it. Or some individuals desided(what do you mean here?I cannot understand.) to invest money to improve these lands.

In summary, the conclusion reached in this argument is not well supported. To make this argument more persuasive, the author should provide more concerte evidences to demonstrate that the residents of MC consistantly like recreations in the river, the quality of the water in the river prevent people's recreation, the plan of the agency is effective and the lands along the MR need to be improved by the government.


It is a excellent argument beside some little flaws.
The logic in you argument is very good I think,so just pay attention to the word spelling.