Argument137【challenge yourself小组】第三次作业 by zhangrongxinxln

zhangrongxinxlnUID：2368076

Argument137
In the editorial the author makes his conclusion that if the river is going to be cleaned the use of the Mason River will increase. To support his conclusion, the author points out that the agency responsible for the rivers in the region has made plans to clean the river. And the author makes a prediction that the government should increase its budget to protect the public lands along the river. Close scrutiny on each of the assumptions, however, reveals the author’s assumptions untenable as it stands.
  First and foremost, the author commits the fallacy of "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in assuming that the reason why local residents seldom go to the river for recreation due to the bad quality of the water in the river. However, that is not necessarily the case. To uphold his argument, the author cites that people ever complained about the water in the river years ago and so is the water quality that prevents the locals to go to the river for fan. However, things maybe have changed now. Lacking clear evidence that there are still complaints from the community, the author cannot convince me that it is the quality of the water that prohibits people to the river.
  Secondly, even if I were to concede that it is the water problem that causes the less use of the river. However, the author does not give strong evidence that the river will be cleaned as the people expect. Although the agency announced to clean up the river, the consequence relies too much on the extent of the pollution and the work efficiency. Even the river will be cleaned as the people anticipate, the author still cannot assume that the use of the river will increase. It has entirely other possibilities, such as cold weather which has a good influence on people's activity as well as the busy work, that cause the decline of the use of the river. Without the evidence that people will much likely to the river for fun after the river is cleaned, the conclusion is presumptuous.
  Finally, the author also claims that the government should increase the budget to improve the public lands along the river. However, this recommendation is entirely groundless. Follow the assumptions given by the author, we should take some money to improve the river condition, which not means that we should also need to improve the lands along the river. Maybe the public lands along the river are all in good conditions. Thus, lacking the evidence that the public lands along the river are badly destroyer, the author's recommendation is too unfounded.
  In sum, the editorial's author cannot justify his conclusion on the basis of the scant evidence. To fortify his conclusion, the author must offer better evidence that the decline use of the river is because of the water quality but not other reasons and that people are more willingly to go to the river for recreation if the river is cleaned up. To better assess the argument, I would need to know that the lands along the river are really indeed need to be improved.   

[ 本帖最后由 zhangrongxinxln 于 2008-7-31 08:47 编辑 ]

springelfUID：2458536

In the editorial the author makes his conclusion that if the river is going to be cleaned the use of the Mason River will increase. [这个复述不清楚，有点曲解人家作者的意思了。]To support his conclusion, the author points out that the agency responsible for the rivers in the region has made plans to clean the river. And the author makes a prediction[用predictions不准确，用suggestions也许更好一点] that the government should increase its budget to protect [题目好像没有说protect吧。他只是说的是improvement，这个跟protect还是有很大区别的] the public lands along the river. Close scrutiny on each of the assumptions, however, reveals the author’s assumptions untenable as it stands.

  First and foremost, the author commits the fallacy of "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" in assuming that the reason why local residents seldom go to the river for recreation due to the bad quality of the water in the river. However, that is not necessarily the case. [这句放在这里不恰当，因为你没有批驳就直接给出你的结论了。]To uphold his argument, the author cites that people ever complained about the water in the river years ago and so is the water quality that prevents the locals to go to the river for fan. However, things maybe have changed now.[如果能说说如何changed更好了] Lacking clear evidence that there are still complaints from the community, the author cannot convince me that it is the quality of the water that prohibits people to the river.

  Secondly, even if I were to concede that it is the water problem that causes the less use of the river. However,[even if 和however貌似不能一起用，前面让步，后面就突然转折了] the author does not give strong evidence that the river will be cleaned as the people expect. Although the agency announced to clean up the river, the consequence relies too much on the extent of the pollution and the work efficiency. Even the river will be cleaned as the people anticipate [anticipating], the author still cannot assume that the use of the river will increase. It has entirely other possibilities, such as cold weather which has a good influence on people's activity as well as the busy work, that cause the decline of the use of the river. Without the evidence that people will much likely to the river for fun after the river is cleaned, the conclusion is presumptuous. [good argument!]

  Finally, the author also claims that the government should increase the budget to improve the public lands along the river. However, this recommendation is entirely groundless. Follow the assumptions given by the author, we should take some money to improve the river condition, which not means that we should also need to improve the lands along the river. Maybe the public lands along the river are all in good conditions. Thus, lacking the evidence that the public lands along the river are badly destroyed, the author's recommendation is too unfounded.

  In sum, the editorial's author cannot justify his conclusion on the basis of the scant evidence. To fortify his conclusion, the author must offer better evidence that the decline use of the river is because of the water quality but not other reasons and that people are more willingly to go to the river for recreation if the river is cleaned up. To better assess the argument, I would need to know that the lands along the river are really indeed need to be improved.   

[总的来说，文章的结构和逻辑都没有什么大问题了。在语言的准确性上要多注意，特别是在第一段的时候，不要自己去猜测作者的意图，拿不准的时候宁愿抄原话~ good article！！]