argument137 同主题写作欢迎拍砖

hwyireneUID: 200039

------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 editorial in the Mason City(MC) newspaper, the author asserts that the recreational usage of Mason River will increase and the budget put into the improvement of public owned lands along the river should therefore be added up to accompany. To justify his conclusion, he claims that the residents in MC have a preference in water sports and it's the dirty water of Mason River which prevents them from using it as a recreational place. And he also cites that relevant agency has announced plans to clean up the river so that the cleanness of its water will have a improvement. Although seemingly reasonable at first glance, this article has several flaws which render it unpersuasive.

First of all, the editorial makes a improper analysis of the whole reasons why the Mason River is seldom used a recreational site, by claiming that the residents of MC have complained about the water of the river. But there are possibly other factors which render the river improper for holding water sports. Maybe the bottom of the river is very deep thus increase risk of swimming in it, or there are many pebbles and obstacles in the course of the river that make it dangerous to boat in the river, which all contribute to the desert of the river.

Secondly, the author says that the agency responsible for rivers in the region has announced plans to clean the river, yet fails to inform us about any specific methods in the plans. Thus, we are not convinced of the fact that if the plans are plausible, or they may require a high cost which is out of the scale which this region can afford. Furthermore, as long as we that to say is not to do. Having designed plans aren't tantamount to carrying them out. Maybe the causation of the dirty water is the contaminated water exerted by a factory which is the major resource of tax of the regional government, it might add to the difficulty of the solution.

Even if the causation of the poor quality of the river is to be responsible for the little usage of the river and the plans brought out by the agency are in deed effective to improve the condition, there also lacks evidence that after the clearance of the water, local residents will return to Mason River for their water sports. The author ignores to rule out possibility that just because of the incapability of the river to provide recreational place during the past years, in order to satisfy the residents' needs, many recreational sites like the swimming pools, artificial river course for boating, and reservoir for fishing have been built. Under such circumstances, these places are already enough for the residents and no more is need, so the river may lose its attractiveness to people and will not serve as additional recreational facility for local people.

In all, the editorial has hastily judged from insufficient proofs and made a ungrounded conclusion which sounds unpersuasive. To bolster the claim of this article, a more detailed study should be organized to find out the whole conditions of the river which render it unfit for the use of a recreational place, and the true causation of the contamination of the river water. And to better assess the prediction contended by the author, the agency's plans should be went a careful examination through to grant them more available.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-8 at 10:09 ]

hwyireneUID: 200039

其实还有一点没写，就是即使MR重新成为水上活动场所，也并不意味着MC需要加大对沿河公共用地的改造，因为可能这条河附近的各项设施已经比较完备
不知道是不是言之有理，请大家多多挑错吧:handshake