Argument137<challenge yourself >第4次作业by Tracycxt

TracycxtUID：2505888

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: 452          TIME: 00:36:33          DATE: 2008-7-31 1:15:48

In this argument, the author concludes that after implementing the announced plan about cleaning up the Mason River, the resident are likely to use it as the position for entertainment. To support the conclusion , the author cites the analysis concerning the habit of resident when it comes to pleasure. In addition, the author provides the justification of increased usage of Mason River. A careful examination, however, reveals that none of evidence could bolster up the argument.

To begin with, the author's conclusion that the healthy condition of Mason River could be attributable to the low recreational use of it . While the quality of the river could be an important contributing factor, it is far from being the only one to lead to no attendance to the river. The author overlooks several possibilities which could bring the same result. Perhaps the river would be too narrowly contained within its bank to guarantee any recreational activity successfully happened; or perhaps the resident prefer to another nearest river as their entertained place. Without ruling out these possible explanations, it is too hastily to conclude that low usage of river due to negative quality of it.

Even assuming that the condition of Mason River cause no practical requirement of river, the author cannot indicate that the implementation of plan could ensure that the improvements of quality will take place and become more manifest. Common sense informs that the situation would be better than it once was, are dependent on the efficiency and the exact analysis of plan. Moreover, the author fails to tell us how serious the river is. The dirtier of river, the more difficult task the Mason city would do as well as the more span needed to ensure that it is completely improved. Whether the river could resume to such a degree ensuring that the residents could be able to entertain there without being worry about health could be regarded as the basic factor waiting to indicate
In brief, another problem with this argument is that it assumes that the need of gaining the publicly owned lands is essential. No evidence has been offered to substantiate the necessity of this activity. Without concrete analysis about the surrounding, it is entirely possible that the lands along the river are entirely within the residents’ desire, what the council does it to aggravate the economic recession.
In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands .Before the conclusion about the high likelihood of using the river as recreational place are reached, however, more detailed and complete analysis of the virtue condition of river and the inclination of residents. After all, a false confidence in resolving the problem would not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

linyunfUID：2405027

In this argument, the author concludes that after implementing the announced plan about cleaning up the Mason River, the resident are likely to use it as the position for entertainment. To support the conclusion , the author cites the analysis concerning the habit of resident when it comes to pleasure. In addition, the author provides the justification of increased usage of Mason River.（感觉你转述的两个论点与原文有差距，有点不清楚.个人觉得只要稍微改下就好了，你的改动太大了。） A careful examination, however, reveals that none of evidence（用复数？）could bolster up the argument.

To begin with, the author's conclusion that the healthy condition of Mason River could be attributable to the low recreational use of it . While the quality of the river could be an important contributing factor, it is far from being the only one to lead to no attendance to the river*(attendance?这个用法可以么？). The author overlooks several possibilities which could bring the same result. Perhaps the river would be too narrowly contained within its bank to guarantee any recreational activity successfully happened（guarantee sth happen 吧）; or perhaps （直接Or perhaps）the resident prefer to another nearest river as their entertained place. Without ruling out these possible explanations, it is too hastily(hasty) to conclude that low usage of river due to negative quality of it.(很顺畅)

Even assuming that the condition of Mason River cause no practical requirement of river, the author cannot indicate that the implementation of plan could ensure that the improvements of quality will take place and become more manifest. Common sense informs that the situation would be better than it once was, are dependent on the efficiency and the exact analysis of plan（句法有问题，可能是whether the situation would be better than it once was depends on the efficiency and the exact analysis of plan）. Moreover, the author fails to tell us how serious the river(the river’s pollution) is. The dirtier of river, the more difficult task the Mason city would do as well as the more span needed to ensure that it is completely improved(这句子不错啊，问下，后面一定要加the（more difficult）么.) Whether the river could resume to such a degree ensuring that the residents could be able to entertain there without being worry about health could be regarded as the basic factor waiting to indicate（句子很好，但是这个indicate不知道恰不恰当）

In brief（换个吧）, another problem with this argument is that it assumes that the need of gaining the publicly owned lands is essential. No evidence has been offered to substantiate the necessity of this activity. Without concrete analysis about the surrounding, it is entirely possible that the lands along the river are entirely within the residents’ desire, what the council does it to aggravate the economic recession（？？）.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands .Before the conclusion about the high likelihood of using the river as recreational place are reached, however, more detailed and complete analysis of the virtue condition of river and the inclination of residents（are needed）. After all, a false confidence in resolving the problem would not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

很好，有几个小错误。
其中几个点我可能是错的，或者是疑问的。

wanghugigiUID：2465119

In this argument, the author concludes that after implementing the announced plan about cleaning up the Mason River, the resident are likely to use it as the position for entertainment. To support the conclusion , the author cites the analysis concerning the habit of resident when it comes to pleasure. In addition, the author provides the justification of increased usage of Mason River. A careful examination, however, reveals that none of evidence could bolster up the argument.

To begin with, the author's conclusion that the healthy condition of Mason River could be attributable to the low recreational use of it （不是一个句子） . While the quality of the river could be an important contributing factor, it is far from being the only one to lead to no attendance to the river. The author overlooks several possibilities which could bring the same result. Perhaps the river would be too narrowly contained within its bank to guarantee any recreational activity successfully happened; or perhaps the resident prefer to another nearest river as their entertained place. Without ruling out these possible explanations, it is too hastily to conclude that low usage of river due to negative quality of it.

Even assuming that the condition of Mason River cause no practical requirement of river, the author cannot indicate that the implementation of plan could ensure that the improvements of quality will take place and become more manifest. Common sense informs that the situation would be better than it once was, are dependent on the efficiency and the exact analysis of plan. Moreover, the author fails to tell us how serious the river is. The dirtier of river, the more difficult task the Mason city would do as well as the more span needed to ensure that it is completely improved. Whether the river could resume to such a degree ensuring that the residents could be able to entertain there without being worry about health could be regarded as the basic factor waiting to indicate
In brief, another problem with this argument is that it assumes that the need of gaining the publicly owned lands is essential. No evidence has been offered to substantiate the necessity of this activity. Without concrete analysis about the surrounding, it is entirely possible that the lands along the river are entirely within the residents’ desire, what the council does it to aggravate the economic recession.
In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands .Before the conclusion about the high likelihood of using the river as recreational place are reached, however, more detailed and complete analysis of the virtue condition of river and the inclination of residents. After all, a false confidence in resolving the problem would not stand up to rigorous scrutiny.
恩。。我觉得在这么短时间内写出这样的文章已经相当不错了。很好。。只是倒数第二段稍显简略。。