ARGUMENT137 [Victors小组]第七次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

137.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."

761 words

In this argument, the author recommends Mason City council to increase its budget for publicly owned lands along the river since recreation use of the river will increase. To justify this recommendation, the author alleges that water sports are the favorite form of recreation activity among residents according to the regional surveys and the seldom use of the river as place for recreations was because of the poor water quality of the river. Moreover, the author points out that the situation would be changed for the agency responsible for rivers announced plans to clean up the river. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that residents in Mason City would like to have water sports on the Mason River. Firstly, the surveys cited in the passage are too vague to be informative. There's no indication of how many people were involved in the surveys and whether they could be the representative of the general population. It is totally possible that those surveys were carried out among college students or only 20 individuals were enrolled into the surveys. Perhaps those people reported their tendency to have water sports while actually they only saw such games showed on sports channels. If residents in Mason would like to play water sports, it doesn't necessarily mean that they would like to play them on the river. There could be other places fit for such activities, such as the sea or other rivers in the region. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the assumption that residents in Mason would prefer water sports on Mason River.

Even assuming there was less use of the river as the place for recreational activity, no promise could be made that residents are avoiding the river for the poor water quality. Maybe Mason River is not a perfect site for those activities for the currents of the water, or perhaps it is famous for its scene and the city council forbids personal activity such as swimming and boating so as not to ruin the natural beauty. Furthermore, the author fails to provide any scientific evidence, other than some complaints come from part of the residents, to show that Mason River is in poor condition. Perhaps those people would like to complain anything around them, or maybe the water used to be contaminated by some chemicals but it was all relieved after some procedures. Until the author rules out such possibilities, his/her assumption that poor water quality prevents people from have recreational activities on the river could not be taken seriously.

If the water quality of the river is poor, cleaning plans of the agency responsible for rivers in the region doesn't necessarily mean the situation will be reversed. Commonsense informs us that water pollution might be irreversible, let alone the fact that the agency might give up the strategy. Maybe there would be the deficit of the agency and such promise is just the plan under the state of blueprint. Or perhaps the plan could be easily carried out, but the efficiency still opens to question. Author's failure to eliminate or even consider such possibility renders the conclusion that water quality will be improved in some day highly suspect.

Finally, we still question the necessity for the city council to invest more money on river-side publicly owned lands. On one hand, residents might change their preference of recreational activity from water sports to other forms even after the agency succeeds to improve the water quality, thus there might be no change along the riverside. On another hand, if there is more recreational activity along the riverside, maybe the city council could rent out those lands in order to get more profits, or private investment could reach a high level which would be a win-win strategy for both sides.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence--maybe by polls among general population--to show that residents in Mason City would like to have creational activity on the river and it was the poor water quality that impedes them to carry it out. In addition, the author should ensure us that after the agency responsible for rivers in the region cleans up the river, the situation will definitely be reversed. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether there's the necessity for the council to improve publicly owned lands along the riverside if recreational use of the river is increased.

乳虎UID: 2251211

137.The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper. 761 wordsIn this argument, the author recommends Mason City council to increase its budget for publicly owned lands along the river since recreation use of the river will increase. To justify this recommendation, the author alleges that water sports are the favorite form of recreation activity among residents according to the regional surveys and the seldom use of the river as place for recreations was because of the poor water quality of the river. Moreover, the author points out that the situation would be changed for the agency responsible for rivers announced plans to clean up the river. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that residents in Mason City would like to have water sports on the Mason River. Firstly, the surveys cited in the passage are too vague to be informative. There's no indication of how many people were involved in the surveys and whether they could be the representative of the general population. It is totally possible that those surveys were carried out among college students or only 20 individuals were enrolled into the surveys. Perhaps those people reported their tendency to have water sports while actually they only saw such games showed on sports channels[good point] . If residents in Mason would like to play water sports, it doesn't necessarily mean that they would like to play them on the river. There could be other places fit for such activities, such as the sea or other rivers in the region. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the assumption that residents in Mason would prefer[更喜欢？]  water sports on Mason River.

Even assuming there was less use of the river as the place for recreational activity,[前面没有反驳there was less use of the river as the place for recreational activity这里用Even assuming是不是有点突兀] no promise could be made that residents are avoiding the river for the poor water quality. Maybe Mason River is not a perfect site for those activities for the currents of the water, or perhaps it is famous for its scene and the city council forbids personal activity such as swimming and boating so as not to[in case]  ruin the natural beauty[这点值得商榷，如果Maybe Mason is famous for its scene会有 complaints about the quality of the water in the river吗？]. Furthermore, the author fails to provide any scientific evidence, other than some complaints come from part of the residents, to show that Mason River is in poor condition. Perhaps those people would like to complain anything around them, or maybe the water used to be contaminated by some chemicals but it was all relieved after some procedures. Until the author rules out such possibilities, his/her assumption that poor water quality prevents people from have recreational activities on the river could not be taken seriously.

If the water quality of the river is poor, cleaning plans of the agency responsible for rivers in the region doesn't necessarily mean the situation will be reversed. Commonsense informs us that water pollution might be irreversible, let alone the fact that the agency might give up the strategy. Maybe there would be the deficit of the agency and such promise is just the plan under the state of blueprint. Or perhaps the plan could be easily carried out, but the efficiency still opens to question. Author's failure to eliminate or even consider such possibility renders the conclusion that water quality will be improved in some day highly suspect.

Finally, we still question the necessity for the city council to invest more money on river-side publicly owned lands. On one hand, residents might change their preference of recreational activity from water sports to other forms even after the agency succeeds to improve the water quality, thus there might be no change along the riverside. On another hand, if there is[will be] more recreational activity along the riverside, maybe the city council could rent out those lands in order to get more profits, or private investment could reach a high level which would be a win-win strategy for both sides.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence--maybe by polls among general population--to show that residents in Mason City would like to have creational activity on the river and it was the poor water quality that impedes them to carry it out. In addition, the author should ensure us that after the agency responsible for rivers in the region cleans up the river, the situation will definitely be reversed. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether there's the necessity for the council to improve publicly owned lands along the riverside if recreational use of the river is increased.