argument137 [jet小组]第11次作业

ljc-dreamUID: 2166457

137The 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."


Before appropriating more funds for improvments to the publily owned land along the Mason River, the evidence given by the author should be scrutinized from several perspectives in order to escape the risk of a waste of money. The author seems to assume that cleaning up the Mason River will bring more river recreatures, which is based on a survey that residents in this region consistently rank water sports as their favorite form of recreation. However, it is far from substantial to convince us.

In the first place, there is no evidence presented that cleaning up Mason River will exert a direct influence on the recreation activities of Mason’s residents. From the editorial, we nothing about the length, breadth, channel condition and water flow velocity about the Mason River, which are essential qualifications for water sports. Lacking the statistics about the river channel, it is entirely possible that the river is too narrow and there are so many rapids, whirls and sharp turns in Mason River that swimming and boating in the river is quite dandgerous. Further, if the river locates in the downtown of the city with terrible surroundings, residents of the region then would like to go fishing in another river in the near suburb for the tranquil and agreeable scenery. Therefore, the author’s assumption that the pollution has prevented residents from doing water sports in Mason River is not cogently founded.

Furthermore, even if the pollution were indeed accountable for the few recreations in the Mason River, one should still consider the feasiblity and results of the plans to clean up Mason River, which are announced by the a responsible agent. Without analysis about the plans and evaluation about the credit of this agent, we may ask: Are these plans appropriately designed to effectively  reduce the pollution? Does the agent embrance enough reputation to dissipate certain enormous impediments to ensure the good execution of these plans? Moreover, one should also estimate the  length of periold for accomplishment in the river training. As is known to all, a project such as cleaning up a terrible polluted river usually takes a long time. It is quite probable that the improved publicly owned lands will suffer erosion again during the period of being leaved unused.

Last and not least, the author fails to supporting the necessity for improvement to the publicly owned lands even the cleaning up Mason River brings more water sports there. First, the raise of the water sports does not indicate more using of land facilities. In addition, there is no information about the condition of the current publicly own lands, maybe they are still available for the public use, including the water sports man and woman.

In conclusion, the author merely provides several irrelevate and unsbustantial evidence to support the necessity of improvement to publicly own lands. Much more work is need to justify his argument.

mix99UID: 2432326

137The 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."


Before appropriating more funds for improvments to the publily owned land along the Mason River, the evidence given by the author should be scrutinized from several perspectives in order to escape the risk of a waste of money.(很有自己的特色,没有用模板的僵硬) The author seems to assume that cleaning up the Mason River will bring more river recreatures, which is based on a survey that residents in this region consistently rank water sports as their favorite form of recreation. However, it(用the evidences provided by the author要清楚一点) is far from substantial to convince us.

In the first place, there is no evidence presented that cleaning up Mason River will exert a direct influence on the recreation activities of Mason’s residents. From the editorial,我查了MV这个词只有社论或者想社论的,这里不能用. we nothing小心呀.没有谓语可是重大错误 about the length, breadth, channel condition and water flow velocity about the Mason River, which are essential qualifications for water sports. 专业人士与众不同Lacking the statistics about the river channel, it is entirely possible that the river is too narrow and there are so many rapids, whirls and sharp turns in Mason River that swimming and boating in the river is quite dandgerous. Further, if the river locates in the downtown of the city with terrible surroundings, residents of the region then would like to go fishing in another river in the near suburb for the tranquil and agreeable scenery. Therefore, the author’s assumption that the pollution has prevented residents from doing water sports in Mason River is not cogently founded.

Furthermore, even if the pollution were indeed accountable for the few recreations in the Mason River, one should still consider the feasiblity and results of the plans to clean up Mason River, which are announced by the a responsible agent. Without analysis about the plans and evaluation about the credit of this agent, we may ask: Are these plans appropriately designed to effectively  reduce the pollution? Does the agent embrance enough reputation to dissipate certain enormous impediments to ensure the good execution of these plans? Moreover, one should also estimate the  length of periold for accomplishment in the river training. As is known to all, a project such as cleaning up a terrible polluted river usually takes a long time. It is quite probable possible that the improved publicly owned lands will suffer erosion again during the period of being leaved unused.应该把攻击限制在mason river河流流经mason city的河段.还要考虑mason city在河的上游还是下游.

Last and not least, the author fails to supporting the necessity for improvement to the publicly owned lands even the cleaning up Mason River brings more water sports there. First, the raise of the water sports does not indicate more using of land facilities. In addition, there is no information about the condition of the current publicly own lands, maybe they are still available for the public use, including the water sports man and woman.

In conclusion, the author merely provides several irrelevate and unsbustantial evidence to support the necessity of improvement to publicly own lands. Much more work is need to justify his argument.
有一些书写错误,请注意.我按照你的思路.说一下.
首先,污染不一定与居民去不去的关系.
其次,能不能治好治好污染.
第三,治好和开发利用land能否吸引居民.
思路还是比较清楚的.最后一段可以多说一点.你有致命的错误:作者的结论是什么?
我的思路是:
首段攻击这句话: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.这句话有大问题.
第二段:攻击But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River.这句话也有大问题.
第三段:攻击这句话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."为什么一定要给钱呢?

sallyplumageUID: 2343965

argument137 [jet小组]第11次作业

137The 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."Before appropriating more funds for improvements of the public owned land along the Mason River, the evidence given by the author should be scrutinized from several perspectives in order to escape the risk of a waste of money（避免浪费就行了，不用要risk）. The author seems to assume that cleaning up the Mason River will bring more river recreatures, which is based on a survey that residents in this region consistently rank water sports as their favorite form of recreation. However, it is far from substantial to convince us.In the first place, there is no evidence presented that cleaning up Mason River will exert a direct influence on the recreation activities of Mason’s residents（主题句换成治理河与居民娱乐的关系不确定会好些）. From the editorial, we nothing about the length, breadth, channel condition and water flow velocity about the Mason River, which are essential qualifications for water sports. Lacking the statistics about the river channel, it is entirely possible that the river is too narrow and there are so many rapids, whirls and sharp turns in Mason River that swimming and boating in the river is quite dangerous. Further, if the river locates in the downtown of the city with terrible surroundings, residents of the region then would like to go fishing in another river in the near suburb for the tranquil and agreeable scenery. Therefore, the author’s assumption that the pollution has prevented residents from doing water sports in Mason River is not cogently founded. Furthermore, even if the pollution were indeed accountable for the few recreations in the Mason River, one should still consider the feasiblity and results of the plans to clean up Mason River, which are announced by the a responsible agent. Without analysis about the plans and evaluation about the credit of this agent, we may ask: Are these plans appropriately designed to effectively reduce the pollution? Does the agent embrance enough reputation to dissipate certain enormous impediments to ensure the good execution of these plans? Moreover, one should also estimate the length of periold for accomplishment in the river training. As is known to all, a project such as cleaning up a terrible polluted river usually takes a long time. It is quite probable that the improved publicly owned lands will suffer erosion again during the period of being leaved unused.（？？没太看懂）Last and not least, the author fails to supporting the necessity for improvement to the publicly owned lands even the cleaning up Mason River brings more water sports there. First, the raise of the water sports does not indicate more using of land facilities. In addition, there is no information about the condition of the current publicly own lands, maybe they are still available for the public use, including the water sports man and woman. In conclusion, the author merely provides several irrelevate and unsbustantial evidence to support the necessity of improvement to publicly own lands. Much more work is needed to justify his argument.

还有错词，改吧
第一个论述很到位，第二个是想说资金可能不到位？没太看懂
说你句子有问题是指有些连接词很怪，所以句子也很怪