argument137 限时第3篇 GOGOGO

azaleaUID: 196122

The arguer's view seems sound and convincing at first glance that Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, based on the fact that Mason City residents seldom use the river for recreational activity and announced plans to clean up the river. However, his argument can hardly bear further consideration due to several critical flaws in it.

To begin with, the arguer provide no information about whether MAson River is indeed clean or not, and at the same time, whether residents really think that it is dirty, which renders the argument based upon it highly suspect. We are innocent about the former and present condition of the water of the river and the views residents hold of the water quality. Without concrete evidence to support his assumption that residents are discontent with the water quality, we cannot be convinced by his argument.


What's more, even if the river is virtually polluted and complaints indeed come about, we cannot be fully persuaded that the reason why residents seldom have recreational activity near the river is due to the polluted river. It is entirely possible that the geographical conditon of the river is not suitable for recreational activities on the water. For instance, if the river is narrow and shallow, then it is impossible for sailing and water-skiing. That's why residents love water sports but do not do them on Mason River. Also other reasons may prevent residents from taking recreational activities there. Cases in point may be heavy traffic such as freight and passenger transport on the river or a considerable distance from residental districts. Unless the arguer rules out these alternative reasons listed above, his suggestion is open to doubt.

Another fallacy that spoiled this argument is that the arguer optimistically believe that the plans to clean up the river will be implemented and have significant effect. Nevertheless, we know nothing about whether Mason City has enough fund and laborforce to carry out the cleaning. And if so, how long will the effect last? If the river becomes clean for a while and then polluted again, it makes no difference.

When we probe into the conclusion of the argument, we may find even bigger flaws in it. Even if the plans take effects and people no longer complain about the water, no one can guarantee they will come to the river for recreational activities, given the possibilies mentioned above such as geographical condition and distance from the house of the residents. In this sense, whatever measures to improve the public land is useless. Even if residents will be willing to do activities near the river, it is rash to suggest increasing the budget for the public land along the river before we take into account the actual condition of the land there. If the land has already been decorated and planted, and the view has already been satisfactory, there is no need to waste money.

In conclusion, this argument is ruined by the above fallacies. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer has to provide evidence to justify that the river is polluted and residents are dissatisfied with its water, as well as the real need of people to have recreation there. Moreover, the arguer should investigate the actual condition of the land use along the river before he suggests increasing budget.

37min 562words
还是超时了 sigh~大家看看

azaleaUID: 196122

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."

加一UID: 2168628

模版已经基本形成,还在不断改进中,加上azalea强大的语言功力,还是很有希望的撒~
倒数第二段说的是结论中出现的错误,我觉得"政府对河边土地改造"和"改善河水环境"没有必然关系.楼主应该鲜明的指出来,最后两句"If the land has already been decorated and planted, and the view has already been satisfactory, there is no need to waste money."好象不是很有必要~

azaleaUID: 196122