Argument137 568words，刚才那篇超时4分钟，这篇超时1分钟，恢复得挺快^O^

echostateUID：194935

Argument137
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分57秒     568 words
从2005年7月7日16时23分到2005年7月7日16时30分
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The author's conclusion that the recreational activities of Mason River will increase and the City council will need to augment the budget for improving the lands along the river, be it seemingly reasonable, is based on groundless assumption and suffers from problematic reasoning, which render the argument unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, based on the survey about the citizens' favorite sports as well as some complaints about the quality of the water of Mason river, the author arrives at the conclusion that people's avoidance of Mason river is due to the quality of the water. However, these facts, in itself, does not constitute a justification for this causality. In fact, the author fails to notice or chooses to ignore a lot of other factors which can explain why the citizens of Mason don’t go to Mason river for recreation. For instance, it is possible that the survey is drawn from only a few respondents therefore can not represent the inclination of the overall population in the city. Or it is rather possible that the complaints mentioned above was just produced by a few people and can not indicate that most people in Mason is unsatisfied of the quality of water. Or perhaps the river itself is too shallow to accommodate the demands of swimming, fishing and boating. Under either scenario, the author can not safely establish the causal relationship referred above.

Moreover, even assuming that the quality of water is indeed the cause for the idleness of Mason river, this argument also rely on certain dubious assumption that the agency's announce will, beyond all doubts, improve the quality of water and increase the recreational usage of the river. Nonetheless, lacking evidence to contrary, it is rather likely that the improvement project will not be practiced owing to lack of budget. It is also probable that the project's implementation are very slow because there exist many hardships standing in the way of the project. Or perhaps the citizens has already get in to the habit of coming to other rivers for their water sports, therefore even granted that the quality of Mason river has been improved, the recreational usage of it will not increase. To be brief, without getting ride of these and other possible scenarios, the author can not depend on this unbelievable assumption to draw any conclusion.

Finally, even providing that the usage of the river indeed augment after the improvement for the quality of water, the author can not judge that the council should increase the budget for mending the lands along river, merely according this fact. Firstly, the author provides no information about the current condition of these lands. Maybe they are already well-prepared for swimming sports. Again, it is rather possible that the budget for this project is quite adequate, thus there is no need to rise the budget. Last but not least, the author neglects that there might be some other emergencies which needs lots of budget, such as the improvement of the water's quality as mentioned above. And it is universally acknowledged that if the water quality project can not be executed properly, the budget for mending lands of the river is nothing but useless. In a nutshell, the argument fails to substantiate the declaration that the city council must increase the budget for rebuild the lands of the river.

In last analysis, any reasonable argument must rest on logical reasoning and take in to consideration all the elements to evaluate the conclusion. However, the author fails to do this.

[ Last edited by echostate on 2005-8-7 at 17:24 ]

alcestisUID：2101945

The author's conclusion that the recreational activities of Mason River will increase and the City council will need to augment the budget for improving the lands along the river, be it seemingly reasonable, is based on groundless assumption and suffers from problematic reasoning, which render the argument unconvincing as it stands.开头好！

To begin with, based on the survey about the citizens' favorite sports as well as some complaints about the quality of the water of Mason river, the author arrives at the conclusion that people's avoidance of Mason river is due to the quality of the water. However, these facts, in itself, does not constitute a justification for this causality. In fact, the author fails to notice or chooses to ignore a lot of other factors which can explain why the citizens of Mason don’t go to Mason river for recreation. For instance, it is possible that the survey is drawn from only a few respondents therefore can not represent the inclination of the overall population in the city. Or it is rather possible that the complaints mentioned above was just produced by a few people and can not indicate that most people in Mason is unsatisfied of the quality of water. Or perhaps the river itself is too shallow to accommodate the demands of swimming, fishing and boating. Under either scenario, the author can not safely establish the causal relationship referred above.

Moreover, even assuming that the quality of water is indeed the cause for the idleness of Mason river, this argument also rely on certain dubious assumption that the agency's announce will, beyond all doubts, improve the quality of water and increase the recreational usage of the river. Nonetheless, lacking evidence to contrary, it is rather likely that the improvement project will not be practiced owing to lack of budget. It is also probable that the project's implementation areis very slow because there existare many hardships standing in the way of the project. Or perhaps the citizens has already get in tointo the habit of coming to other rivers for their water sports, therefore even granted that the quality of Mason river has been improved, the recreational usage of it will not increase. To be brief, without getting ride of these and other possible scenarios, the author can not depend on this unbelievable这个词有点不合适呢 suspicious doubtful……, unbelievable的语气太强了 用在这里好像有点讽刺 assumption to draw any conclusion.

Finally, even providing that the usage of the river indeed augment after the improvement for the quality of water, the author can not judge that the council should increase the budget for mending the lands along river, merely according this fact. Firstly, the author provides no information about the current condition of these lands. Maybe they are already well-prepared for swimming sportswater sports. Again, it is rather possible that the budget for this project is quite adequate, thus there is no need to riseraise the budget. Last but not least, the author neglects that there might be some other emergencies which needs lots of budget, such as the improvement of the water's quality as mentioned above. And it is universally acknowledged that if the water quality project can not be executed properly, the budget for mending lands of the river is nothing but useless. In a nutshell, the argument fails to substantiate the declaration that the city council must increase the budget for rebuild the lands of the river.

In last analysis, any reasonable argument must rest on logical reasoning and take in to consideration all the elements to evaluate the conclusion. However, the author fails to do this.

佩服~~~ 写得很清楚
也没用什么模版 语言丰富
找不到什么可拍的…… :p