argument137 51互助组 by ruczephyr

ruczephyrUID: 2181202

题目：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."
字数：603          用时：00:30:00          日期：2007-7-6 11:54:34

The passage is presented to suggest that the Mason City council should increase the budget for the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To substantiate the point, the author provides evidences that there are surveys to show a favor toward  water sports, and the agency responsible for the rivers has announced to clean the river. The argument looks reasonable at the first glance, however, in-depth reveals that it still suffers from several fallacies as follows.

First and foremost, the author unfairly excludes other possibilities that might result in few recreational activity of the residents rather than attribute the phenomenon to the poor quality of the water alone. It is entirely possible that the Mason River is not stable all the time, and there are dramatic water waves which are not suitable for sports such as fishing, and what is more significant the river is dangerous for the people to swim or drive a boat. While, though, there are complaints about the quality, what the majority of residents concern most still lies in the safety and comfort when enjoying water sports. Thus, it is too hasty for the author to claim that few recreational uses is due to poor water condition.

What is more, though mentioned that the agency responsible for the river has announced to clean up the river, whether the agency would take real measures to improve water condition for the Mason River and whether the plans of the agency will indeed clean up the Mason River to meet the need for water sports are still open to doubt. On the one hand, as the agency only announces to do so, I have enough reasons to doubt that to obtain eulogies from the residents or to persuade the council to allocate budget, they deliberately make such declare ahead of the time for real treatment of the water. If this is the case, not until the agency makes precise plan for cleaning up the river will I accept that the river will be definitely clean for recreational activities. On the other hand, even grant that the agency is not cheating both the council and the residents, I can still question that because of poor arrangements or plans, they can not receive better results-totally cleaning up the river for people to swim or fishing. Under this circumstance, without additional information of the project of cleaning up the river, the author fails to convince me that the river will be suitable for recreational use.

Last but not least, even grant that recreational use of the river is ready to increase, there is no sound evidence to validate necessity for the Mason City council to allocate extra budget for the publicly owned lands.  As the author includes nothing to relate the recreational use of the river with the publicly owned lands along the river, his suggestion is still under suspicion that the majority of people only enjoy their sports in the water, while in contrast, they would not linger much on the lands near the river.  Or it is equally possible that the council, who discoveries the potential use of the river,  has already allocate enough budget for the constructions relating to water sports. As a result, the increase the recreational use of the river is still not beyond its affordance. In consequence, the present evidences lend little support to claim that there is need for additional budget for the lands along the river.

In brief, the argument is made on the basis of several ungrounded evidences, and to better improve the argument , the author needs to offer detailed information to verify all the suspicions above.

lulu花开UID: 2351079

The passage is presented to suggest that the Mason City council should increase the budget for the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To substantiate the point, the author provides evidences that there are surveys to show a favor toward  water sports, and the agency responsible for the rivers has announced to clean the river. The argument looks reasonable at the first glance, however, in-depth reveals that it still suffers from several fallacies as follows.（感觉开头有点模式化，可以稍微变一下方式，具体可以看一看ETS给的范文

First and foremost, the author unfairly excludes other possibilities that might result in few recreational activity of the residents rather than attribute （to） the phenomenon to the poor quality of the water alone. It is entirely possible that the Mason River is not stable all the time, and there are dramatic water waves which are not suitable for sports such as fishing, and what is more significant the river is dangerous for the people to swim or drive a boat. While, though, there are complaints about the quality, what the majority of residents concern most still lies in the safety and comfort when enjoying water sports. Thus, it is too hasty for the author to claim that few recreational uses is due to poor water condition.

What is more, though mentioned that the agency responsible for the river has announced to clean up the river, whether the agency would take real measures to improve water condition for the Mason River and whether the plans of the agency will indeed clean up the Mason River to meet the need for water sports are still open to doubt. On the one hand, as the agency only announces to do so, I have enough reasons to doubt that to obtain eulogies from the residents or to persuade the council to allocate budget, they deliberately make such declare ahead of the time for real treatment of the water. If this is the case, not until the agency makes precise plan for cleaning up the river will I accept that the river will be definitely clean for recreational activities.（个人认为这个地方可以简短一点，有点拖沓（119个词啊），如果你30分钟写不出600多字的话，简短一点是个好方法 ，并不影响论证。） On the other hand, even grant that the agency is not cheating both the council and the residents, I can still question that because of poor arrangements or plans, they can not receive better results-totally cleaning up the river for people to swim or fishing. Under this circumstance, without additional information of the project of cleaning up the river, the author fails to convince me that the river will be suitable for recreational use.

Last but not least(据说用这个不好！), even grant that recreational use of the river is ready to increase, there is no sound evidence to validate necessity for the Mason City council to allocate extra budget for the publicly owned lands.  As the author includes nothing to relate the recreational use of the river with the publicly owned lands along the river, his suggestion is still under suspicion that the majority of people only enjoy their sports in the water, while in contrast, they would not linger much on the lands near the river. （这句话写的很精彩） Or it is equally possible that the council, who discoveries the potential use of the river,  has already allocate enough budget for the constructions relating to water sports. As a result, the increase the recreational use of the river is still not beyond its affordance. In consequence, the present evidences lend little support to claim that there is need for additional budget for the lands along the river.In brief, the argument is made on the basis of several ungrounded evidences, and to better improve the argument , the author needs to offer detailed information to verify all the suspicions above.

还是写的很好，论证很清楚明白！而且有说服力，就是少数地方感觉费的笔墨太多了！

[ 本帖最后由 lulu花开 于 2007-7-7 08:47 编辑 ]