Argument137【0710G-HIT坚持交作业小组作文大帖】第十一次作业 ambitionxx

ambitionxxUID：2314730

希望大家猛拍，不要手下留情，对给我提出很多建议的战友表示感谢

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: 494         TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-10 上午 11:29:33

The argument presents very well, but has many logical errors. After all, the improvement of the publicly is beneficial to the residents. However, the arguer draws the conclusion that the council need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River merely based on the fact that the agency is responsible for river and the resident are very fond of the water sport.

To begin with, there is no information to substantiate that the river is very fit for the water sports and the water will be cleaned very quickly. Maybe this river has many limits to do the water sports. Perhaps the river is too narrow to boat. It is possible that there are few fishes in this river even the river is cleaned up, so few people are willing to fish in this river. In addition, as we all know, cleaning up the river always needs a long time, perhaps two years, even ten years. So it is too arbitrary to think that we should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly.

Furthermore, even if the river is fit for the water sports and will be cleaned up soon, we still can not get the conclusion that the people will have the water sports on the river. Perhaps they have bad impression on the river due to the pollution before, so they will not use it even it is cleaned up. Even if they people think the river is good enough, there is no information about the people's hobbies and lifestyles. Maybe the residents like to go the other place, where the scene is very beautiful and there are many friends. If so, they will continue to go there after the river is cleaned up. In addition, the surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports can not represent that they will continue to do the water sports in the future. Maybe there is a new sport at this religion and all residents like it. If so, they will switch from the water sports to the new sport.

Finally, even if the river is clean enough and resident are willing to do water sports on the river, there is no evidence in argument to support that the residents should increase the budget for improvements to the publicly. First, there is no information about the old publicly. Perhaps the publicly are good enough now, so it is not necessary to improve them. Second, we should consider other improvements, such the shopping, the bank, which are all convenience for the people and attract them to this place.

All in all, the argument is not conceiving through all the discussion above. Before the budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River, the arguer should investigate the river and the residents' hobbies and lifestyles, and then we should consider the river public. If the arguer considers this problem, the argument will be more conceiving.