argument137 互拍。连接。指教。

果小冻UID：208370

ARGUMENT 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."
正文：

Based on several announced plans, the author suggests that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river. However, since the efficiency of the plans and the prospect of this river are all not open to doubt, the suggestion is not persuasive at all.

First of all, no evidence shows that agency of Mason City is able to handle the problems of the river and make it clean again. We need to know something about the condition of this river, since how bad it is polluted should be first known before being cleaning up. In addition, without providing the detailed contents of these plans, we cannot grant these plans will surly do a good job. The author needs to inform us the measures will be used in the process of cleaning up the river, the people who are in charge of this project and so on. Unless the plans are really fit for the conditions of Mason River, we cannot be so optimist about its good effect. Whether the efficiency of agency is high or not also remains unknown to us. The author needs to offer us some credible information, which may prove the work ability of this agency. In short, the author should not depend on the agency without consideration.

Furthermore, the author should not grant that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase even if it can possibly be recovered to the original status. First, the survey just tells us that residents preferred water sports, while it does not mean that people chose Mason River as the place where they did sports. Whether Mason River is suitable for the water sports remains doubtful, and therefore the author needs to provide more detailed information. For swimming, the author should provide information about the width and depth of this river. For fishing, we need to know the amount of fish in this river. For boating, we need to know the overall climate of this city and the appearance along the river. Also, the author should conduct a representative and scientific survey in order to acknowledge the attitudes of the residents towards Mason River. Since whether they are willing to rank water sports in this river is completely suspect. In short, whether the recreational use of Mason River will increase or not depends on myriads of factors besides the condition of water.

Moreover, no evidence shows that the publicly owned lands need improvements. The author should provide us information about the condition of the publicly owned lands along the Mason River in the present, including the facilities they offer, how many people they may admit and the services provided by the shops near the river. In addition, the author needs to tell us how much should the government put into the improvements, since the ability of economic ability cannot be out of consideration. Then, how much will the cleaned Mason River bring to us? The author needs to compare the receiving and the expending before giving suggestion.

In sum, without taking consideration of the situations of Mason River, the prospect of recreational activity on the river, and the work efficiency of the agency, the author should not making suggestion to government just relying on his or her own assumptions. Instead, the author needs to provide more information about the conditions of the past and the present.

gtrandUID：2156108

刚刚看过Archer1123同主题argument，有关意见请参考。

果小冻UID：208370

恩。好的。

mathwwwUID：2155539

First of all, no evidence shows that agency of Mason City is able to handle the problems of the river and make it clean again. We need to know something about the condition of this river, since how bad it is polluted （the situation of pollution） should be first known before being cleaning up. In addition, without providing the detailed contents（多余） of these plans, we cannot grant these plans will surly（surely） do a good job. The author needs to inform us the measures will be used in the process of cleaning up the river, the people who are in charge of this project and so on. Unless the plans are really fit for the conditions of Mason River, we cannot be so optimist（拼错，去掉so, 后面good effect 改成outcome or conseq） about its good effect. Whether the efficiency of agency is high or not （The efficiency of the agency） also remains unknown to us. The author needs to offer us some credible information, which may prove the work ability of this agency. In short, the author should not depend on the agency without consideration.
(整段有点太罗嗦了，看起来不太舒服。另一方面，你提出什么方面会出现问题的时候，加一个 if, provided that 出现什么situation 就会无法达到什么后果，这样会看起来完整一点。比如你说这个机构的效率也可能不高，后面加上如果一年半载水质都没有明显改善，去那游玩的人也不大可能增加。下同，只略改语言了 )

Furthermore, the author should not grant（第二次出现） that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase even if it  can possibly be recovered to the original status. First, the survey just tells us that residents preferred water sports （the only information the survey provided is that...）, while it does not mean that people chose Mason River as the place where they did sports. （Whether 放头第二次, It is still doubtful whether）Whether Mason River is suitable for the water sports remains doubtful, and therefore the author needs to provide more detailed information. For swimming, the author should provide information about the width and depth of this river. For fishing, we need to know the amount of fish in this river. For boating, we need to know the overall climate of this city and the appearance along the river. Also, the author should conduct a representative and scientific survey in order to acknowledge the attitudes of the residents towards Mason River. Since whether they are willing to rank water sports in this river is completely suspect（able）. In short, whether the recreational use of Mason River will increase or not（or not 第二次） depends on myriads of factors besides the condition of water.

Moreover, no evidence shows that the publicly owned lands need improvements. The author should provide us information about the condition of the publicly owned lands along the Mason River in the present, including the facilities they offer, how many people they may admit and the services provided by the shops near the river. （In addition 第n 次，furthermore.  Additional attention should also be paid to the government budgets of these improvements, which is ... 稍微变变吧）In addition, the author needs to tell us how much should the government put into the improvements, since the ability of economic ability cannot be （ruled） out of consideration. Then, how much will the cleaned Mason River bring to us? （反问设问不太好，Then 不太好，这个句子删掉都行，有点累赘了） The author needs to compare the receiving and the expending （expense, compare the  receiving and expense 这句子有点怪，就说 should weight the cleaning up carefully, 我也想不出特别好的来） before giving suggestion.

我的马甲UID：2177806

ARGUMENT 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."

嘿嘿，我又来了，怎么没有提纲啊？幸亏这题研究过，不然还得研究研究它。

正文：

Based on several announced plans, the author suggests that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the river可以考虑加入对水上活动的那个论断（therefore后面的那个） . However, since the efficiency of the plans and the prospect of this river are all not 啊？？？ open to doubt, the suggestion is not persuasive at all.

First of all, no evidence shows that agency of Mason City is able to handle the problems of the river and make it clean again. We need to know something about the condition of this river, since how bad it is polluted should be first known before being cleaning up 这里说的这个意思，感觉有些怪，你再读读 . In addition, without providing the detailed contents of these plans, we 前面的provide用的ing,那省略的主语因该和句子一个吧，都是we，要么前面改，要么后面改 cannot grant these plans will surly do a good job. The author needs to inform us the measures will be used in the process of cleaning up the river, the people 赘余 who are in charge of this project and so on. Unless the plans are really fit for the conditions of Mason River, we cannot be so optimist about its good effect. Whether the efficiency of agency is high or not also remains unknown to for比较好 us. The author needs to offer us some credible information, which may prove the work ability of this agency. In short, the author should not depend on 是要表达trust的意思吗？还是就想说依靠，我觉得trust更合适些 the agency without consideration.

Furthermore, the author should not grant that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase even if it can possibly be recovered to the 多余的theoriginal status. First, the survey just tells us that residents preferred water sports, while it does not mean that people chose Mason River as the place where they did sports. Whether Mason River is suitable for the water sports remains doubtful, and therefore the author needs to provide more detailed information. For swimming, the author should provide information about the width and depth of this river. For fishing, we need to know the amount of fish in this river. For boating, we need to know the overall climate of this city and the appearance " scenery " or others may be betteralong the river. Also, the author should conduct a representative and scientific survey in order to acknowledge the attitudes of the residents towards Mason River. Since 是做连词用不？不明白为什么放在这whether they are willing to rank water sports in this river is completely suspect. In short, whether the recreational use of Mason River will increase or not depends on myriads of factors besides the condition of water.

Moreover, no evidence shows that the publicly owned lands need improvements. The author should provide us information about the condition of the publicly owned lands along the Mason River these lands等代一下就行了，前面那句刚说完，而且这个定语还这么长in the present 正确用法题目已给出, including the facilities they offer, how many people they may admit and the services provided by the shops near the river. In addition, the author needs to tell us how much should the government put into the improvements, since the ability of economic ability cannot be out of consideration. Then, how much will the cleaned Mason River bring to us? The author needs to compare the receiving and the expending before giving suggestion.

In sum, without taking consideration of the situations of Mason River, the prospect of recreational activity on the river, and the work efficiency of the agency, the author should not making suggestion to government just relying on his or her own assumptions. Instead, the author needs to provide more information about the conditions of the past and the present.


一个想法，算是对题目的交流。
我觉得你的错误找的没毛病，但组织的逻辑性不强，我觉得这个argu组织起来可以很容易地体现出逻辑，就是从头到脚的让步。
首先，没有证据表明居民不用M河做为水上娱乐的地点是因为河不够清洁。有人抱怨可能只是少数情况，而主要原因可能是这条河的条件不适合做水上运动，等等，这个你说了的，还可以说可能此地还有一条河更适合做运动，不论从污染情况还是从其他方面（这个虚构的河后面可以用）。

其次，做一个让步，就算河不干净是原因，也没理由相信经过改善后M河的水上娱乐作用会上升。第一，改善措施的效用问题，你也谈到了。第二，上面那个河可以用了，就算改善了，那人们可能更喜欢那条没有污染过的河，在那玩习惯了，心里因素等等都可以谈（记得牡蛎那个题吗？那里给出了另一个，这里我们虚构了一个）。当然，这个虚构的河如果实践起来没时间写，上面不谈，这里也不说，完全不影响论证。

最后，再做一个让步，就算M河的娱乐作用上升了，那对土地投资有必要吗？云云

这是我的看法。

我今天只写了ISSUE，有空帮着看看吧issue185 丑闻
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=