ISSUE83 [KB 9.11]No.11 phoenixlw

phoenixlwUID: 2382912

这次我的ARGUMENT写得很烂 大家一起讨论下

题目：ISSUE 83 - "Government should preserve publicly owned wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only a few people."
字数：548          用时：0:45:00          日期：2007-8-29

I tend to partly agree with the assertion that government should preserve wilderness areas in their natural state, even though these areas are often extremely remote and thus accessible to only minor people. Admittedly the wilderness plays a vital role in many fields, say science research, environment, and ecology balance. However, if government funds excessive to preserve these remote areas at the cost of the sacrifice of the whole people's benefit, it is necessary. Consequently, my point of view is that a reasonable emphasis on the wilderness is just fine; while government also should pay adequate attentions to the whole people's good.

Foremost, it is true that the enormous significance of the wilderness should never be ignored for its potential importance in many aspects. Many people might think that the wilderness is useless since majority of people suppose so, however, its value is under the surface of the fact. When it comes to the science research, the wilderness contains a large variety of unfamiliar and even unknown creatures, which are of great value for human's deeper research on the creatures to figure out myriads of mysterious phenomena. Besides, as ecology balance is concerned, the wilderness can prevent from the occurrence of the erosion water and soil as well as maintain a various and complete ecology system, which could balance the sharp sudden change in weather and make the weather more comfortable for human's living. Both these two and other scenarios could support the truth that the wilderness does worth human's treasure.     

Furthermore, it is also necessary for people to protect their environment from being contaminated and polluted. The same with the purpose of the protection of the wilderness, protect the environment is as important as the former. Since the industrial revolution, more and more factories have been built, more and more forests have been cut down, more and more animals have become extinct. In order for a prosperous development of technologies and society, human contaminate the air with toxic smoke, pollute the water with waste, and fill the world with sharp noise, all of which result from a series of irresponsible actions conducted by human. However, people should try to decrease and avoid these detrimental results since the environment is just the place we human live in.     

However, even though to preserve the publicly owned wilderness and to protect the environment which is suffering from severe pollutions both are to save human being from foreseeable disaster-revenge from the nature, yet mulling over and attempting to solve the existing problems are equally or even more essential for the society. The government should be clear that there still many people suffer from hunger, illness, poverty, and homelessness. Therefore, not only the government need pay attention to the wilderness and the environmental problems, but also it should care about more on these existing and severe social problems. Since the people are the base of a prosperous nation, so without a general good of its population, the nation will never gain large amounts of benefit significantly and lastly.
  
In sum, considering the importance of the wilderness, the government should fund for it; on the other hand, the government also should put a great emphasis on its people. Only when both the environmental and social problems are accomplished, the nation will be truly worth respect.

         


题目：ARGUMENT 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."
字数：458          用时：0:30:00          日期：2007-8-29

In this argument, the author asserts that the Manson City (MC) council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned along the Manson River (MR) in order for its presidents to use the nearby MR for recreational activity. To support this argument, the author cites a survey and his or her conclusion that residents think the MR is not clear enough. However, this argument has a series of flaws which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.

Firstly, when the survey is concerned, the validity of the survey is open to doubt. The author fails to prove that the respondents of the survey are representative of the whole residents. Perhaps the most of the respondents are the young and so that they claim that they rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation. However, since most of the residents are mid-aged and old citizens, therefore actually the number of people who are enthusiastic in this form of recreations is low. Thus, the survey could not lend a sound support to this argument since it is unreliable.  

Secondly, though there are some complaints about the water quality, still the author unfairly assumes that the water sports rarely being conducted in the river results from the quality of the water of MR, however it is unwarranted. Foremost, it is highly possible that people just do not like to do some water sports along in river; they prefer to play soccer, basketball on the grounds instead. Besides, it is also entirely possible that the river is to shallow too boat and swim. Without ruling out these two and other possible scenarios, the author cannot convince me that the residents rarely do some sports along the river result from the quality of the water of MR. If so, the increased budget will also become meaningless.  

Thirdly, even if the quality of the water influence the use of the river, yet the author fails to substantiate that the plans to clean up MR necessarily indicates that the situation will be bound to change. On the one hand, these plans are just announced by the agency responsible for the rivers, the author does not offer more information on how and when the rivers will be cleaned. Besides, even if the river was cleaned in the future, still the situations will not necessarily change significantly. Therefore, the author cannot persuade me since either condition can undermine the conclusion that the plans can change the conditions of the river.

In sum, the argument which seems logical at first has several flaws within it. To strengthen this argument, the author should prove that the survey is of validity; besides, to further bolster this argument, the author also should substantiate that the reasons of people not using the MR for recreational activity is the poor quality of the water of the MR. Besides, I need to know when and how the cleaning programs will be conducted.