argument137 【jet小组】第十一次作业

dreamstringUID: 2389201

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: 478          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2008-2-24 17:09:00

This argument draws a conclusion that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To substantiate the claim, a result of surveys is cited. The arguer also strengthen the argument by claiming that the quality of the water will change, since there have been complaints about it. However, a careful consideration of several factors in the argument will show how groundless it is.

First of all, the arguer suggests that residents in Mason City seldom use Mason River for recreational activity, while surveys of the residents rank water sports as favorite form of recreation. However, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to show that the sample of the survey is random and the number of people who took the survey is large enough. Maybe the participants of the survey only conclude strong male and youth, who like water sports mostly. Moreover, it is possible that only 1 percent of the region's residents attended the survey, which causes the survey lack of representative.

Secondly, the arguer believes that the residents must be avoiding the river because of the complaints about the quality of the water. In fact, there is also no data to show that how many residents complain about the quality of the water. Maybe only 5 percent of the residents complained about it. In addition, there is no casual relationship between the quality of the water and the preference of the river. It is possible that they avoid the river because the river is too billowy and active in the river is too dangerous. If the arguer can not offer data to show that there are a lot of residents avoid the river because the river is not clean enough, I can not be convinced that the conclusion is rational.

What is more, the arguer claims that the agency is going to clean up Mason River so the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. And therefore the Mason City council will need to increase its budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. However, since there is no casual relationship between recreational use of the river and the quality of the water, the conclusion is not reasonable. Moreover, the arguer does not provide that when will the agency clean up the river. Maybe the project will be taken 10 years later. In this circumstance, to increase the budget is lack of careful consideration and too hasty.

In sum, the argument is full of flaws. To improve it, the arguer should provide more data evidence to prove that all the region's residents like water sports and there are casual relationship between the quality of the water and the recreational use of it. Moreover, when the clean up project would turn into reality should also be offered by the arguer.

taler_renUID: 2380158

好像发不上来，就上传下我修改的内容把

[ 本帖最后由 taler_ren 于 2008-2-26 18:21 编辑 ]

benjamin07UID: 2310909

This argument draws a conclusion that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To substantiate the claim, a result of surveys is cited. The arguer also strengthens the argument by claiming that the quality of the water will change, since there have been complaints about it. However, a careful consideration of several factors in the argument will show how groundless it is.

First of all, the arguer suggests that residents in Mason City seldom use Mason River for recreational activity, while surveys of the residents rank water sports as favorite form of recreation. However, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to show that the sample of the survey is random and the number of people who took the survey is large enough. Maybe the participants of the survey only conclude strong male and youth, who like water sports mostly. Moreover, it is possible that only 1 percent of the region's residents attended the survey, which causes the survey lack of representativeness.

Secondly, the arguer believes that the residents must be avoiding the river because of the complaints about the quality of the water. In fact, there is also no data to show that how many residents complain about the quality of the water. Maybe only 5 percent of the residents complained about it. In addition, there is no causal relationship between the quality of the water and the preference of the river. It is possible that they avoid the river because the river is too billowy and active and the river is too dangerous. If the arguer can not offer data to show that there are a lot of residents avoid the river because the river is not clean enough, I can not be convinced that the conclusion is rational.

What is more, the arguer claims that the agency is going to clean up Mason River so the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. And therefore the Mason City council will need to increase its budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. However, since there is no causal relationship between recreational use of the river and the quality of the water, the conclusion is not reasonable. Moreover, the arguer does not provide that when will the agency clean up the river. Maybe the project will be taken 10 years later. In this circumstance, to increase the budget is lack of careful consideration and too hasty.

In sum, the argument is full of flaws. To improve it, the arguer should provide more data evidence to prove that all the region's residents like water sports and there is causal relationship between the quality of the water and the recreational use of it. Moreover, the time of cleaning up the project should also be offered by the arguer.