Argument137【07-10G Superstar大帖】第8次作业 by gyyx

gyyxUID: 2290150

A137 : 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."

2007-6-17

In this editorial, the author concludes that Mason City council should increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, which has been complaint about its unclean water by residents before and will be cleaned up in future according to a plan made by the agency responsible. At first glance, the author’s conclusion might be reasonable, however, a close scrutiny to the evidence reveals it lends little credible support to it.

First of all, the author ignores other possible reasons for people seldom use Mason River for recreation although they like water sports consistently, besides the reason that the quality of the water is bad. Perhaps, it is a long way to go from the sports’ fans’ house to the river, or perhaps these people are accustomed to the convenience the water club provided and do not like a self-help sports. Without addressing these alternative scenarios, the editor could not conclude it is because of the quality of the water people like water sports did not use the river for fun.  

The second problem with this editorial is that we are suffering from lack of information to be convinced that the situation of the river is about to change only by the mere plan. It is no clear when the plan will be put into practice, what achievement will get, and how great the efforts make in the plan. It is possible that the plan announced is only a politic instrument to console the public or complete with other party. However, as the author did not provide evidences to refute these assumptions and prove his argument, I could not agree with the author.

Finally, the author assumes a direct cause-effect relationship between the clean-up plan and increase of budget for improvement to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. Perhaps the present budget for the publicly owned lands is sufficient and will be adequate after the plan carried out, as lacking of any credible statistics. Or perhaps, the lands along the river have been planned and built before. In either explanation the author could not justifiably rely on the mere plan the responsible agency announced.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing due to lack of significant evidence. To bolster this argument, the author should provide dear evidence—perhaps by way of a local survey—why residents like water sports do not use the river for entertainment, and a scientific study—the quality of the river now, more details about the clean-up plan and some information about the budget now and before.

desirermimiUID: 2108321

Argument137【07-10G Superstar大帖】第8次作业 by gyyx
A137 : 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."
2007-6-17

In this editorial［editor?］, the author concludes that Mason City council should increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, which has been complaint about its unclean water by residents before and will be cleaned up in future according to a plan made by the agency responsible. At first glance, the author’s conclusion might be reasonable, however, a close scrutiny to the evidence reveals it lends little credible support to it. 开头概括原文大意，是否笔墨过多？而没有直接切入到对于论文的反驳中。但是最后一句话还算是表达了你自己的立场，但是也没有鲜明的thesis句

First of all, the author ignores other possible reasons for people seldom use Mason River for recreation although they like water sports consistently, besides the reason that the quality of the water is bad. Perhaps, it is a long way to go from the sports’ ［sports］fans’ house to the river, or perhaps these people are accustomed to the convenience the water club provided and do not like a self-help sports. Without addressing these alternative scenarios, the editor could not conclude it is because of the quality of the water people ［who］like water sports did not use the river for fun这句话语序有些混乱，有许多个谓语，从句没有分清.  

The second problem with this editorial is that we are suffering from lack of information to be convinced that the situation of the river is about to change only by the mere plan. It is nonot,no修饰名词 clear when the plan will be put into practice, what achievement will get, and how great the efforts make in the plan. It is possible that the plan announced is only a politic instrument to console the public or complete with other party. However, as the author did not provide evidences to refute these assumptions and prove his argument, I could not agree with the author. 这一段的论证不错，比较有力。层层递进

Finally, the author assumes a direct cause-effect relationship between the clean-up plan and increase of budget for improvement to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.［开头一句阐明本段要驳斥的要点］ Perhaps the present budget for the publicly owned lands is sufficient and will be adequate after the plan carried out, as lacking of any credible statistics. Or perhaps, the lands along the river have been planned and built before.［这可能的原因还可能有好多，仅仅是说可能之前已经被计划或者修建，不够充分。比如可能已经有私人要投资兴建之类的］ In either explanation the author could not justifiably rely on the mere plan the responsible agency announced.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing due to lack of significant evidence. To bolster this argument, the author should provide dear evidence—perhaps by way of a local survey—why residents like water sports do not use the river for entertainment, and a scientific study—the quality of the river now, more details about the clean-up plan and some information about the budget now and before. ［总结段不错］

小结：拼写错误较少，用语巧妙精确。
　　　驳斥的逻辑顺序还应进一步组合。