argument137 cracking小组大帖

jiaojiao529UID: 2268889

time:45 words:585
严重超时啊，狂汗！！

137.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."

提纲
1.       没有证明居民不来M河娱乐的原因是河水质量的问题。有可能其他方面的原因。另外投诉不代表大众的意见
2.       计划澄清河水的结果是不可预见的。
3.       公用土地是否需要改善没有证明。

In this argument, the author enthusiastically advocated that the agency should to clean up Mason River, in that matter, the mason city residents would like to do water sports on this river. And the M city need to increase its budget for improvement to the publicly owned lands along the m river. The argument is well presented, but is not well-reasoned. I will discuss each of these questionable facets in turn.

First of all, the author fails to consider other possible alternatives may lead the m residents to seldom use the nearby M river for any kind of recreational activity. Such alternatives may include that this river is not appropriate to do water sports at all, or people must pay money to play on this river or there is another river nearby this city, which is cleaner and convenience for residents to play. It is possible that M river is too deep and its flows too fast that the residents did not think it is a safe river to do water sport. In this matter, even the quality of the water of the river is improved by clean up M river, the residents will not to do water sport on this river. Or perhaps this river changed the residents a lot for play on it, so the residents seldom use it for any kind of recreation activity. It is also possible that M river is not the unique one in this city; by comparison, residents prefer to enjoy entertainment in other river. In such cases, the fact that residents seldom use M river for any kind of recreation activities is nothing with the quality of this river. Thus the plan of clean up M river is not a effective way to capture the interest of residents to play in this river.

Secondly, the mere fact the there have been complaints about the quality of the water in this river lends no support to this conclusion. It is possible that these complaints are not representative enough to reflect the willing of masses. We are not informed that how many people have complained about the quality of this river, if the number of complaints was quite small, the conclusion would be highly susceptible. In addition, the author stated that the agency has announced a plan to clean up the river. However, whether this plan will be implanted effectively and efficiently is unsusceptible. There is no evidence presented that the agency has any idea of how to clean up the river.

Finally, the author also fails to improve the public lands along M river need to improve. Even assuming that recreational use of the river is likely to increase, whether the public lands along this river is nor appropriate for recreation is open to doubt as the author have not informed us the condition. It is highly possible that these land were wonderful for entertainments ground. Furthermore, any increase in improve the lands have to be able to overcome huge increase in the budget of agency. There is no support offered to show that this would be the case.

In sum, this argument is based on mere speculation with absolutely no cause and effect evidence presented to show that residents seldom use M river for recreation is responsible for the quality of the water in this river. No convincing evidence is offered that the agency should clean up the river. Furthermore, there is no support for the idea that the public lands along the river should be improved.

[ 本帖最后由 jiaojiao529 于 2007-2-13 10:36 编辑 ]

elvis_xuUID: 181081

time:45 words:585
严重超时啊，狂汗！！

137.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."
提纲
1. 没有证明居民不来M河娱乐的原因是河水质量的问题。有可能其他方面的原因。另外投诉不代表大众的意见
2. 计划澄清河水的结果是不可预见的。
3. 公用土地是否需要改善没有证明。
我们的思路一样哦！
In this argument, the author enthusiastically advocated that the agency should to clean up Mason River, in that matter, the mason city residents would like to do water sports on this river. And the M city needs to increase its budget for improvement to the publicly owned lands along the mM river. The argument is well presented, but is not well-reasoned.建议再变化一点,小心抄袭 I will discuss each of these questionable facets in turn. 开头我的意见是再短一点，大家都说开头不要RESTATE，浪费时间
First of all, the author fails to consider other possible alternatives may lead the m residents to seldom use the nearby M river for any kind of recreational activity. Such alternatives may include that this river is not appropriate to do water sports at all, or people must pay money to play on this river or there is another river nearby this city, which is cleaner and more convenience for residents to play. It is possible that M river is too deep and its 可以去掉its谓语并列 flows too fast that the residents think it is unsafe to...did not think it is a safe river to do water sport. In this matter, even the quality of the water of the river is improved by clean up M river,这句话罗素even the quality of the M river water is improved/ even the M river is cleaned up the residents will not likely to do water sport on this river. Or perhaps this river changed charged the residents a lot for play on it, so the residents seldom use it for any kind of recreation activity.我觉得这里不好，河怎么会收费？不是公园啊，你看这样好不好，说禁止玩耍 It is also possible that M river is not the unique one in this city; by comparison, residents prefer to enjoy entertainment in other river. In such cases, the fact that residents seldom use M river for any kind of recreation activities is nothing with has nothing to do with the quality of this river. Thus the plan of to clean up M river is not a an effective way to capture漂亮词 the interest of residents to play in this river.
Secondly, the mere fact the that there have been complaints about the quality of the water in this river lends lend support,漂亮 no support to this conclusion. It is possible that these complaints are not representative enough to reflect the willing of masses. We are not informed that how many people have complained about the quality of this river, if the number percentage of complaints was quite small, the conclusion would be highly susceptible. In addition, the author stated that the agency has announced a plan to clean up the river. However, whether this plan will be implanted conducted effectively and efficiently is unsusceptiblesusceptible易受感动的，我估计你是想用unsuscepted. There is no evidence presented that the agency has any idea of how to clean up the river.
Finally, the author also fails to improve the public lands along M river need to improve.这句结构有问题 Even assuming that recreational use of the river is likely to increase, whether the public lands along this river is nor appropriate for recreation is open to doubt as the author have not informed us the condition.美句 It is highly possible that these 可数么？ land were wonderful for entertainments ground. Furthermore, any increase in improve the lands have to be able to overcome huge increase in the budget of agency. There is no support offered to show that this would be the case. 这段有问题。（即使会增加,土地是否适合娱乐有争议，很有可能土地很适合娱乐，进一步，提高土地要克服资金的困难，美有证据表明是这样一种情况） 括号里是你原文的意思，你看逻辑是步是有问题？
In sum, this argument is based on mere speculation with absolutely no cause and effect evidence presented to show that residents seldom use M river for recreation is responsible for the quality of the water in this river. No convincing evidence is offered that the agency should clean up the river. Furthermore, there is no support for the idea that the public lands along the river should be improved. 听说结尾无所谓，俺就不评价了
楼主能在限时初期就写出这样，很不错了哦，俺现在根本限时不了，
很可能是限时的原因，文中有语法错误，没关系，会更好的。
我对BODY3有点意见，欢迎讨论哦！
还有，你几号考？现在就开始限时了

欢迎拍拍我的，我的arugment137没人改呢！

[ 本帖最后由 elvis_xu 于 2007-2-13 13:56 编辑 ]

jiaojiao529UID: 2268889

谢谢楼上的转头
最后一段我是想说：即使人们会使用河流运动。河边土地不一定需要改善。
最后说，河边土地的收益要大于政府的投资，但是没有证据表明是这样。
可能表达的不好了。