argument137 同主题13，v6战队 8.5

11yvetteUID: 2102418

------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------
The author suggests that the Mason City council should increase the budget in order to improve the situation about the Mason River, which seems rather unreliable after a deliberate consideration.

To begin with, the author does not offer any evidence of the bad quality of the water. The complaints can not support the assertion of the bad quality, since we do not know whether the water is contaminated by the microbe or the industrial pollution. It is more likely that as the life quality prospering, people become more and more rigid to their living space, though the water quality is as same as before, highly demands drive people to complain about such stuff. Without providing enough proof of the quality of the water in the river, the author’s hasty assertion seems fairly suspect.

Secondly, although the water has been contaminated, the author does not provide any information about the relationship between the absence of citizens' water sports and the quality of the water in the river. Other possibilities that lead to the decreasing of water sports should be taken into account. Maybe there has constructed a swimming pool which has a comfortable surrounding such as music is played while people are swimming and sauna facilities are equipped. Contrast to swimming in the river, the swimming pool is a better choice. Also, people do not intend to swimming in winter or bad weather outside. All that may conduce to the lacking of people playing in the river. Ruling out other factors made the statement ungrounded.

Moreover, though we concede that the situation of the river has been getting worse, the statement is ridiculous to say that the condition is likely to change, for the agency has announced to clean it up. Before everything has completely been done, no one can predict the results arbitrary. The agency just plan to clean the river up, what is not mean the water has been cleaned up. We do not know the whole programme of the clean up, such as how long it will be taken, how many financing would be put into, and so forth. After all the preparation has been covered, maybe the author can anticipate the result in a more rational way.

Last but not least, the suggestion made by the author also made the statement unreasonable. For no survey has been conducted to check whether citizens will use the river more often in a recreational way after the river clean up. If the people has used to the new way to entertain in the swimming pool, the increase of the river use is only an assumption. In this case, the city council putting more budgets is not necessary. In addition, the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is unknown to the readers. Maybe the city council has prepared a rather large budget to the improvements, so an increasing on this field would destroy the balance of the government financial budget in a whole. All these factors can not be eliminated, the feasibility seems rather vulnerable.

To conclude, the author fails to prove that whether the diminish of the recreational use of the river correlated with the quality of the water in the river, as well as the effect of the programme of the river clean up, the assertion of the budget increasing for the Mason River is unaccepted as it stands.

[ Last edited by 11yvette on 2005-8-5 at 22:20 ]

11yvetteUID: 2102418

呵呵,ms淹了很久了~~
给提一提^_^

nickaaronleeUID: 183378

------正文------
The author suggests that the Mason City council should increase the budget in order to improve the situation about the Mason River, which seems rather unreliable after a deliberate consideration.

To begin with, the author does not offer any evidence of the bad quality of the water. The complaints can not support the assertion of the bad quality, since we do not know whether the water is contaminated by the microbe or the industrial pollution. It is more likely that as the life quality prospering,（ people become more and more rigid to their living space再深入一下污染的程度）, though the water quality is as same as before, highly demands drive people to complain about such stuff. Without providing enough proof of the quality of the water in the river, the author’s hasty assertion seems fairly suspect.

Secondly, although the water has been contaminated, the author does not provide any information about the relationship between the absence of citizens' water sports and the quality of the water in the river. Other possibilities that lead to the decreasing of water sports should be taken into account. Maybe there has constructed a swimming pool which has a comfortable surrounding such as music is played while people are swimming and sauna facilities are equipped. Contrast to swimming in the river, the swimming pool is a better choice.（ Also, people do not intend to swimming in winter or bad weather outside.可以强调一下Mason的天气问题） All that may conduce to the lacking of people playing in the river. Ruling out other factors made the statement ungrounded.

Moreover, though we concede that the situation of the river has been getting worse, the statement is ridiculous to say that the condition is likely to change, for the agency has announced to clean it up. Before everything has completely been done, no one can predict the results arbitrary. The agency just plan to clean the river up, what is not mean the water has been cleaned up. We do not know the whole programme of the clean up, such as how long it will be taken, how many financing would be put into, and so forth. After all the preparation has been covered, maybe the author can anticipate the result in a more rational way.（这段分析得蛮好的，很深入）

Last but not least, the suggestion made by the author also made the statement unreasonable. For no survey has been conducted to check whether citizens will use the river more often in a recreational way after the river clean up. If the people has used to the new way to entertain in the swimming pool, the increase of the river use is only an assumption. In this case, the city council putting more budgets is not necessary. In addition, the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is unknown to the readers. Maybe the city council has prepared a rather large budget to the improvements, so an increasing on this field would destroy the balance of the government financial budget in a whole. All these factors can not be eliminated, the feasibility seems rather vulnerable.（哈哈，这个理由我倒是没有想到呢）

To conclude, the author fails to prove that whether the diminish of the recreational use of the river correlated with the quality of the water in the river, as well as the effect of the programme of the river clean up, the assertion of the budget increasing for the Mason River is unaccepted as it stands.
（你的argument写得蛮好的，从论述分析上都很流畅，没有什么很明显的重复，赞，字数也好多哦，加油~~~）