argument137【challenge yourself小组】第四次作业 by springelf

springelfUID：2458536

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:509      TIME: 00:40:15          DATE: 2008-7-30 21:36:51

In this argument, the speaker recommends that the Mason City council (MCC) should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River (MR). To support his recommendation, he points out the MR's water will become cleaner because of the promise of agency, and then many people will do water sports again. However, the argument is specious on several grounds, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

On the first glance, the speaker unfairly assumes that people avoid the river because of they think it is not clean enough. Yet, a correlation between the both cannot be demonstrated to be true. The only evidence provided by the speaker is some complaints about the quality of the water. Yet, the speaker fails to provide more information that the source of the complaints, the percentage of residents who complain the quality of the water, the rate of the residents who did the water sports to the total and so on. Lacking of the evidence, the speaker conclude vaguely the assertion that due to the decline of the quality of the water in MR, the residents do not favor the water sports in MR again.

In addition, the speaker also cites the promise from the agency responsible for river which they plan to clean up MR. Yet, the promise is little indication that they will actually clean up MR. It is entirely possible that the pollution in the MR is so serious that they cannot adequate at all. Or perhaps the source of the MR has been polluted so serious that they cannot clean up at all. Even if they can clean up the MR, whether the residents will favor the water sports again is problematic. Perhaps, during a sufficiently long interim period, the hobbies of residents have change to basketball, football and so on. If it is the case, the promise from the agency cannot convince me.

Finally, the suggestion that increasing the budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the MR is problematic. The speaker does not point out the necessity of improving the budget for the publicly owned land, nor does he point out the correlation between improvement to the publicly owned land and the residents’ favorite recreation. It is doubt that people will be back to the water sports in MR after the improvement of publicly owned land. On the contrary, increasing the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MR will make other possible negative effects—are not being considered now, in which case the speaker’s suggestion will be a bad one.

In conclusion, this is a weak argument. To strengthen it, the speaker must provide evidence that due to the pollution of RM, residents refused to do their favorite water sports on MR. Also, the speaker must demonstrate that the agency can clean up the water and increasing the budget for improvement to owned land is useful. To better assess the argument, the speaker should consider and eliminate all other possible positive and negative effects from the suggestion.

superjiang001UID：2300426

In this argument, the speaker recommends that the Mason City council (MCC) should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River (MR). To support his recommendation, he points out the MR's water will become cleaner because of the promise of agency, and then many people will do water sports again. However, the argument is specious on several grounds, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.(很多人都会重复一遍主题，但看了一篇文章，说的是repeat主题不会加分，但也不会扣分，感觉有些道理，不如把时间用在后面的深入论证上) On the first glance, the speaker unfairly assumes that people avoid the river because of they think it is not clean enough. Yet, a correlation between the both cannot be demonstrated to be true. The only evidence provided by the speaker is some complaints about the quality of the water. Yet, the speaker fails to provide more information that the source of the complaints, the percentage of residents who complain the quality of the water, the rate of the residents who did the water sports to the total and so on. Lacking of the evidence, the speaker conclude vaguely the assertion that due to the decline of the quality of the water in MR, the residents do not favor the water sports in MR again. In addition, the speaker also cites the promise from the agency responsible for river which they plan to clean up MR. Yet, the promise is little indication that they will actually clean up MR. It is entirely possible that the pollution in the MR is so serious that they cannot adequate at all. Or perhaps the source of the MR has been polluted so serious that they cannot clean up at all. Even if they can clean up the MR, whether the residents will favor the water sports again is problematic. Perhaps, during a sufficiently long interim period, the hobbies of residents have change to basketball, football and so on. If it is the case, the promise from the agency cannot convince me. Finally, the suggestion that increasing the budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the MR is problematic. The speaker does not point out the necessity of improving the budget for the publicly owned land, nor does he point out the correlation between improvement to the publicly owned land and the residents’ favorite recreation. It is doubt that people will be back to the water sports in MR after the improvement of publicly owned land. On the contrary, increasing the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MR will make other possible negative effects—are not being considered now, in which case the speaker’s suggestion will be a bad one. In conclusion, this is a weak argument. To strengthen it, the speaker must provide evidence that due to the pollution of RM, residents refused to do their favorite water sports on MR. Also, the speaker must demonstrate that the agency can clean up the water and increasing the budget for improvement to owned land is useful. To better assess the argument, the speaker should consider and eliminate all other possible positive and negative effects from the suggestion. 群主的语言很好，我也不帮你改了，说一下论证吧 我感觉（1）首先应该论证没有证据表明：recreational use of the river增加了-->我们就必须要增加预算来改善公共设施，这个是大前提；（2）然后，即使recreational use of the river增加真的需要增加预算这个前提成立，我们也不能证明recreational use of the river真的就会增加（agency announce的东西有问题）（3）然后，可以涉及到其它一些更小的问题了 这是我的想法，可能有问题，群主有什么想法希望能交流。 另外，我没太懂你在我issue提的有关“个人方面的时候应该怎么去论证interest和attitude的问题”，我觉得一个人的打扮和行为确实能在一定程度上反映他的兴趣和态度，然后就举了几个例子；下一段又提了当然有些情况下，这种判断是不准确的。。。。 希望交流！

springelfUID：2458536

嗯，我的意思是，说你对attitude和interest怎么理解的？

是不是把attitude理解为生活态度？
interest是不是理解为生活方面的兴趣？

如果是这样的话，这个文章没有问题。而且也给我了一个很好的启示。:)