argument137 同主题 必回拍

星星之火UID: 2107154

Argument137  第8篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：29分53秒     449 words
从2005年7月4日10时46分到2005年7月4日11时29分
------题目------
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------
In this argument the author concludes that the Mason City council should use more money to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To substantiate his conclusion, the author cites a survey indicating that people would not take any recreational activity in the river, because it is not clean enough. Additionally, the author also predicts that the river would be clean up soon. Close scrutiny, however, reveals that this argument is unconvincing in several respects.

First of all, the author's recommendation relies on the assumption that the river is too dirty to be used for any kind of recreational activity. Yet the author fails to provide any firm evidence. Perhaps the survey was carried just among a small number of people and the respondents were insufficient in number to ensure that the overall residents living there all favor water sports. Even they do love recreation on rivers, there is no evidence that they can not take any recreational activity on the river just because the river is too dirty. It is equally possible that the river might be too narrow or two small to play on it.

Secondly, even assuming that the river is indeed too dirty, the author too hastily concludes that this condition is about to change. Although he cites that the agency responsible for the river has made plan to clean up Mason River, it is entirely possible that the plan might be unreasonable or even could not be carried out in reality. What is more, common sense tells me that turning dirty river into a clean one needs a long period of endeavor, and that it is impossible to change the river's condition in a short time. Therefore, without accounting for these and other possibilities, the author cannot convince me that the river is about to cleaned up.

Finally, even the river is to be clean soon and consequently recreational use of the river will increase, the author recommends too hastily that the Mason City council need to increase its budge for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. Perhaps the residents just take recreational activities on the river and they do not need the lands along the river. Even the lands are needed, there is no evidence that the lands need to be improved. It is possible that the lands are in a good  enough condition, and it would just be a waste of money to raise budge on the lands.

In sum, this argument is logically flawed and unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author would have to provide evidence that the river is indeed dirty and that with the plan of the agency there the river is about to cleaned up. Additionally, it is also useful to know the conditions of the lands along the river.

[ Last edited by 星星之火 on 2005-8-5 at 13:37 ]

xiliustreamUID: 205175

In this argument the author concludes that the Mason City council should use more money to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To substantiate his conclusion, the author cites a survey indicating that people would not take any recreational activity in the river, because it is not clean enough. Additionally, the author also predicts that the river would be clean up soon. Close scrutiny, however, reveals that this argument is unconvincing in several respects.

First of all, the author's recommendation relies on the assumption that the river is too dirty to be used for any kind of recreational activity. Yet the author fails to provide any firm evidence. Perhaps the survey was carried just among a small number of people and the respondents were insufficient in number to ensure that the overall residents living there all favor （favored） water sports. Even they do love recreation on rivers, there is no evidence that they can not take any recreational activity on the river just because the river is too dirty. It is equally possible that the river might be too narrow or two small to play on it. 这一段感觉说的点不够，还有很多明显的点可以批，比如complaints可靠吗？是一两个人的还是很多人的？人们不去水上活动除了水的原因，有没有其它的呢？人的原因？
其实这段是最有话可说的，但我感觉都没说到， survey只提到了数量问题，有没有可能只问了孩子呢？还有最后一句，其实我感觉argument很重视细节的，抓住一点，就把它说透。

Secondly, even assuming that the river is indeed too dirty, the author too hastily concludes that this condition is about to change. Although he cites that the agency responsible for the river has made plan to clean up Mason River, it is entirely possible that the plan might be unreasonable or even could not be carried out in reality. What is more, common sense tells me that turning dirty river into a clean one needs a long period of endeavor, and that it is impossible to change the river's condition in a short time. 这句不是上句的重复吗？没意义，不如说人们不可能在短期进行水上活动。Therefore, without accounting for these and other possibilities, the author cannot convince me that the river is about to cleaned up.

Finally, even the river is to be clean soon and consequently recreational use of the river will increase, the author recommends too hastily that the Mason City council need to increase its budge for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. Perhaps the residents just take recreational activities on the river and they do not need the lands along the river. 这个好象有点牵强吧，不用就不修拉？Even the lands are needed, there is no evidence that the lands need to be improved. It is possible that the lands are in a good  enough condition, 没见过这个用法啊，怪怪的，不如改为the lands’ condition is in good condition. and it would just be a waste of money to raise budge on the lands.

In sum, this argument is logically flawed and unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author would have to provide evidence that the river is indeed dirty and that with the plan of the agency there the river is about to cleaned up. Additionally, it is also useful to know the conditions of the lands along the river.
我的感觉是body不够饱满，点批的不够狠，不过如果是限时了，这样也很不错了，我现在就老是在时间内写不完，对策是把开头结尾都尽量弄短点，最后如果有时间再补