Argument137 【LOVEAW】第四次作业

katrinajjUID: 2242021

Argument137(52)
137The 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."

In this argument, the author concludes that the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River should be increased. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the author assumes that just because there have been complaints about the quality of the water in Mason River, then Mason City residents avoid playing water sports in the river. However, no evidence is provided to support that this is the case.
The mere fact only some complaints occurs does not establish a causal relationship between the complaints and the residents' avoiding playing water sports. Even though the region's residents favor water sports but the do not use Mason River for recreational activity, it does not mean it is the water quality that makes residents do not want to play in the river. It is high possible that other factors might also bring about these same results. For instance, may be there are other more convenient places for residents to play water sports. And maybe the climate there is not suitable for doing outside sports, so people exercise in indoor places. In addition, even if there have been complaints about the quality of the water, it does not mean the quality of water in the river is underproof all the time. It is highly possible that there were so much rain that time, so the soil along the river was push into the river and the water quality was influenced at that time. With water flows, the soil can be defecated. Without rulling out these and other possible factors that lead residents to avoid playing in the river, the author can not confidently conclude the reason for that is the water quality.

Further, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River, it does not follow that the recreational use is likely to increase. As we all know, it always takes a lot of time for the governments to implement the plan. The author provides no evidence to show that when the plan is going to implement and what measures will be carried to deal with the water in the river. When the plans to clean up the river can complete is unknown, so there is no guarantee that the recreation use of the river is likely to rise. Lacking such evidence the author cannot draw any firm conclusion.

Finally, even assuming the water quality will be improved, we can not induce the conclusion that the budget for improvements to publicly owned lands along the river will increase. Even if the water quality is improved, it does not mean the residents will go to the river for recreation. Maybe they do not want to change their habit to go to the river to exercise. Further more, the author provides no evidence to show that the establishment along the river is not self-contained. It is likely that there is no need to improve the establishment and surroundings along the river. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the budget will increase.

In summary, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must provide evidence that the reason why residents do not go to play in Mason River is that the water is not clean enough. And the author should also provide us that the plan to clean up the river will be put into practice soon and the establishment and surroundings along the river should be improved.

小猫儿UID: 2297873

In this argument, the author concludes that the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River should be increased. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands. 开头很简短~

First of all, the author assumes that just because there have been complaints about the quality of the water in Mason River, then Mason City residents avoid playing water sports in the river. However, no evidence is provided to support that this is the case.
The mere fact (that) only some complaints occurs(occur) does not establish a causal relationship between the complaints and the residents' avoiding playing water sports. Even though the region's residents favor water sports but the do not use Mason River for recreational activity, it does not mean it is the water quality that makes residents do not want to play in the river. It is high possible that other factors might also bring about these same results. For instance, may be there are other more convenient places for residents to play water sports. And maybe the climate there is not suitable for doing outside sports, so people exercise in indoor places. In addition, even if there have been complaints about the quality of the water, it does not mean the quality of water in the river is underproof all the time. It is highly possible that there were so much rain that time, so the soil along the river was push into the river and the water quality was influenced at that time. With water flows, the soil can be defecated. Without rulling out these and other possible factors that lead residents to avoid playing in the river, the author can not confidently conclude the reason for that is the water quality.这一段写得很具体，符合ETS的要求，值得学习！

Further, the author commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River, it does not follow that the recreational use is likely to increase. As we all know, it always takes a lot of time for the governments to implement the plan. The author provides no evidence to show that when the plan is going to implement and what measures will be carried （out）to deal with the water in the river. When the plans to clean up the river can complete(be completed) is unknown, so there is no guarantee that the recreation use of the river is likely to rise. Lacking such evidence the author cannot draw any firm conclusion.

Finally, even assuming the water quality will be improved, we can not induce the conclusion that the budget for improvements to publicly owned lands along the river wil(是arguer的建议，用should好一些吧)l increase. Even if the water quality is improved, it does not mean the residents will go to the river for recreation. Maybe they do not want to change their habit to go to the river to exercise. Further more, the author provides no evidence to show that the establishment along the river is not self-contained. It is likely that there is no need to improve the establishment and surroundings along the river. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the claim that the budget will increase（这一句写得很好的说~）.

In summary, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must provide evidence that the reason why residents do not go to play in Mason River is that the water is not clean enough. And the author should also provide us （with）that the plan to clean up the river will be put into practice soon and the establishment and surroundings along the river should be improved.
楼主的第二段给我感觉尤其具有说服力，学习楼主^_^语言也很流畅的说~