Argument137 [jet] NO 11 Eva

jinluevaUID: 2390375

Argument 137
Date: 2008-02-23
Time: 40minutes
Words: 580

Before the Mason City council increases its budget for improving the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, there are certain points contained in the editorial in the Mason City newspaper that are open to question. According to the editorial, although enjoying water sports, residents in Mason City seldom use Mason River for recreation because the quality of the water is not satisfying. Therefore, the author argues, the recently announced plan to clean up the river is likely to increase its recreational use, and accordingly, the budget should also be increased in order to improve the public lands.

Unfortunately, the description of the current quality of water in Mason River is quite doubtful. To justify this point, the author merely mentions "there have been complaints", which could hardly be viewed as sufficient and strong evidence. Firstly, how long ago have these complaints been made? If these are complaints about the water quality one or more decades ago, the present water quality may have already been improved to a nice level, which dose not hinder recreational activities. Secondly, how many complaints have been received in general? If, for example, only one or two citizens occasionally complained about the quality, it is possible that they were just too particular about the water; or they actually complained about other aspects of the water quality, say, the undrinkable minerals contained. And their opinions may not be shared by the majority of the residents.

We may also question: is the reason for residents not taking water sports in Mason River the same as the author assumed? Without any surveys or other evidence, this argument simply takes it for granted that it is the unclear water in Mason River causes few recreational activities. However, it is equally possible that citizens prefer other rivers that are more closely to their houses, or have prettier environments. Or they probably enjoy taking water sports in artificial facilities like swimming pool or backyard ponds. The several surveys cited by the author hardly make any sense on ruling out these possibilities.

Moreover, what about the improvement plans declared by the agency responsible for rivers in this region? Is it really trustworthy and practical? Perhaps, for the agency, these plans are only a method to win elections and will not be actually implemented. Even if the agency devotes itself to realize its promises, there remains numerous difficulties in terms of technology and financial investment.
So the author should be careful to equate plans with what must happens.

Last but not least, even if we assume that the recreational use will increase along Mason River, the need for city council to increase its budget remains questionable. Whether there should be more funds for public lands depends on many other factors such as the total income of the city council, the current condition of lands along Mason River and, most importantly, the opportunity cost of the money. In cases that the council faces a strict budget, it has to spend the money on the most crucial problems facing the city, say the educational facilities, the welfare for the unemployed or the basic maintenance of infrastructure. And the improvement of lands along Mason River in order to make it a better place for amusement could be done by private investment.

In short, those fallacies in the reasoning undermine its credibility and reliability. To further strengthen the argument, the author needs to provide more detailed information about the value and current condition of Mason River.   

滴滴雨儿UID: 2392741

Before the Mason City council increases its budget for improving the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, there are certain points contained in the editorial in the Mason City newspaper that are open to question. According to the editorial, although enjoying water sports, residents in Mason City seldom use Mason River for recreation because the quality of the water is not satisfying. Therefore, the author argues, the recently announced plan to clean up the river is likely to increase its recreational use, and accordingly, the budget should also be increased in order to improve the public lands.


Unfortunately, the description of the current quality of water in Mason River is quite doubtful. To justify this point, the author merely mentions "there have been complaints", which could hardly be viewed as sufficient and strong evidence. Firstly, how long ago have these complaints been made? If these are complaints about the water quality one or more decades ago, the present water quality may have already been improved to a nice level, which dose not hinder recreational activities. Secondly, how many complaints have been received in general? If, for example, only one or two citizens occasionally complained about the quality, it is possible that they were just too particular about the water; or they actually complained about other aspects of the water quality, say, the undrinkable minerals contained. And their opinions may not be shared by the majority of the residents.


We may also question: is the reason for residents not taking water sports in Mason River the same as the author assumed? Without any surveys or other evidence, this argument simply takes it for granted that it is the unclear water in Mason River causes few recreational activities. However, it is equally possible that citizens prefer other rivers that are more closely to their houses, or have prettier environments. Or they probably enjoy taking water sports in artificial facilities like swimming pool or backyard ponds. The several surveys cited by the author hardly make any sense on ruling out these possibilities.


Moreover, what about the improvement plans declared by the agency responsible for rivers in this region? Is it really trustworthy and practical? Perhaps, for the agency, these plans are only a method to win elections and will not be actually implemented.(虽说这个联想是合理的,但总觉得太远了,怀疑人家这个还不如怀疑人家不是不愿意真的实施而是有这样那样的情况..) Even if the agency devotes itself to realize its promises, there remains numerous difficulties in terms of technology and financial investment.
So the author should be careful to equate plans with what must happens.


Last but not least, even if we assume that the recreational use will increase along Mason River, the need for city council to increase its budget remains questionable. Whether there should be more funds for public lands depends on many other factors such as the total income of the city council, the current condition of lands along Mason River and, most importantly, the opportunity cost of the money. In cases that the council faces a strict budget, it has to spend the money on the most crucial problems facing the city, say the educational facilities, the welfare for the unemployed or the basic maintenance of infrastructure. And the improvement of lands along Mason River in order to make it a better place for amusement could be done by private investment.(最后这个推论也来得太突然了,按常理推的话说一句budget按轻重缓急花在刀刃上这样的分析句子就好了嘛..然后再举你说的education之类的..)


In short, those fallacies in the reasoning undermine its credibility and reliability. To further strengthen the argument, the author needs to provide more detailed information about the value and current condition of Mason River.

你的argument练的真是已经很到家了,批的顺畅无比. 我想只要稍微注意下列举他因前后的逻辑衔接和分析就没有任何问题了吧.