argument137【challenge yourself小组】第四次作业

sabrinabaobaoUID：2515866

Argument137 【challenge yourself小组】第四次作业
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."
时间：40分钟

In the editorial, the author recommends that the Mason City council (MCC) should increase the budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the recommendation, he cites result of surveys that local people enjoy the water recreation and the bad quality of water is the reason why they avoid the river. And the author also asserts that the water will become clean because the agency has promised to clean it up. Unfortunately, a careful examination will reveal how groundless the argument is.

First of all, the argument treats a lack of proof to claims that the water sports is the favorite recreation of local people, for the author provide vague data about the survey. Who conducted the survey? What is the quantity of the sample? What is the percentage of the water sports lovers? Does the sample representative the opinion of most residents? The absence of data concerning these aspects cannot validate the premise that the water recreation is popular among local residents. If the residents are not interested in the water recreation, it is not necessary for the MCC to increase the budget for the publicly owned land along the river.

Secondly, the author assumes that the reasons why local people seldom use the Mason River for recreation activity is their concern about the water quality. However, the evidence that there are complaints about the water quality is not necessary and sufficient to prove the correlations between the water quality and recreation utility of the Mason River. The author fails to provide sufficient information, such as how many residents complained about the water quality? Why    they complain about it?  Do the complaints can representative the points of majority of the residents? It is also possible that the local people don’t like to play near the water for other reasons. Even if the quality of water is improved, it would not suffice to ensure the residents will tend to use the nearby of Mason River.

Finally, the author is hasty to generalize that the water will be clean enough for recreation after the agency responsible for the river taking measures to improve the water quality. Perhaps the pollution of the river is too serious to deal with and cannot be used for water sports even after improving the quality of water. Without ensuring the river can be used for recreation, the author cannot convince me the necessity for MCC to increase the budget.

To sum up, the argument lack credibility, for the author overlooks some fallacies of the conclusion. To strengthen it , the author provide clear information about the survey, investigate the reasons why the residents refuse to play near the river now and ensure the quality of water after improvement can be used for water recreation.

qilluraUID：2186638

In the editorial, the author recommends that the Mason City council (MCC) should increase the budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the recommendation, he cites result of surveys that local people enjoy the water recreation and the bad quality of water is the reason why they avoid the river. And the author also asserts that the water will become clean because the agency has promised to clean it up. Unfortunately, a careful examination will reveal how groundless the argument is.
(开头比较清晰)

First of all, the argument treats a lack of proof to claims that the water sports is the favorite recreation of local people, for the author provide vague data about the survey. Who conducted the survey? What is the quantity of the sample? What is the percentage of the water sports lovers? Does the sample representative(represent) the opinion of most residents? The absence of data concerning these aspects cannot validate the premise that the water recreation is popular among local residents. If the residents are not interested in the water recreation, it is not necessary for the MCC to increase the budget for the publicly owned land along the river.

Secondly, the author assumes that the reasons why local people seldom use the Mason River for recreation activity is their concern about the water quality. However, the evidence that there are complaints about the water quality is not necessary and sufficient to prove the correlations between the water quality and recreation utility of the Mason River. The author fails to provide sufficient information, such as how many residents (have)complained about the water quality? Why    they complain(ed) about it?  Do the complaints can representative the points of majority of the residents?(额。。。语法) It is also possible that the local people don’t like to play near the water for other reasons. Even if the quality of water is improved, it would not suffice to ensure ()the residents will tend to use the nearby of Mason River.

Finally, the author is hasty to generalize that the water will be clean enough for recreation after the agency responsible for the river taking measures to improve the water quality. Perhaps the pollution of the river is too serious to deal with and cannot be used for water sports even after improving the quality of water.(语法，语法。。。) Without ensuring the river can be used for recreation, the author cannot convince me the necessity for MCC to increase the budget.

To sum up, the argument lack credibility, for the author overlooks some fallacies of the conclusion. To strengthen it , the author provide clear information about the survey, investigate the reasons why the residents refuse to play near the river now and ensure the quality of water after improvement can be used for water recreation.

qilluraUID：2186638

逻辑不错，对于我这个aw新手而言逻辑是挑不出什么问题了。。。
但是语法问题那叫一个铺天盖地，震古烁今。。。汗。。。

还是要多看范文，多用模板， 恩 :)

linyunfUID：2405027

In the editorial, the author recommends that the Mason City council (MCC) should increase the budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the recommendation, he cites（the） result of surveys that local people enjoy the water recreation and the bad quality of water is the reason why they avoid the river. And the author also asserts that the water will become clean because the agency(responsible for the river 不写清楚的话不大好) has promised to clean it up. Unfortunately, a careful examination will reveal how groundless the argument is.

First of all, the argument treats a lack of proof to(is lack of proof to claim) claims that the water sports is the favorite recreation of local people, for the author provide(s) vague data about the survey. Who conducted the survey? What is the quantity of the sample? What is the percentage of the water sports lovers? Does the sample representative the opinion of most residents（Is the sample representative of the opinion of most residents?） The absence of data concerning these aspects cannot validate the premise that the water recreation is popular among local residents. If the residents are not interested in the water recreation, it is not necessary for the MCC to increase the budget for the publicly owned land along the river.

(这是主要的逻辑错误么？)

Secondly, the author assumes that the reasons why local people seldom use the Mason River for recreation activity is their concern about the water quality. However, the evidence that there are complaints about the water quality is not necessary and sufficient to prove the correlations between the water quality and recreation utility of the Mason River. The author fails to provide sufficient information, such as how many residents complained about the water quality? Why    they complain about it?  Do the complaints can representative（represent） the points of majority of the residents? It is also possible that the local people don’t like to play near the water for other reasons. Even if the quality of water is improved, it would not suffice（sufficient） to ensure the residents will tend to use the nearby of Mason River.

（攻击了逻辑错误，但全用问句是否合适？）

Finally, the author is hasty to generalize that the water will be clean enough for recreation after the agency responsible for the river taking measures to improve the water quality. Perhaps the pollution of the river is too serious to deal with and cannot be used for water sports even after improving the quality of water. Without ensuring the river can be used for recreation, the author cannot convince me the necessity for MCC to increase the budget.

To sum up, the argument lack credibility, for the author overlooks some fallacies of the conclusion. To strengthen it , the author provide clear information about the survey, investigate the reasons why the residents refuse to play near the river now and ensure （that）the quality of water after improvement can be used for water recreation.

论证很好，但第一个论证点似乎不是关键的逻辑错误。

还有，文中提到提高沿河用地的预算，似乎没有足够的理由，不知你的看法如何？

40分钟写这样的文章，看来我要向你学了，现在还得写1个小时，嗨。