- 最后登录
- 2013-3-19
- 在线时间
- 35 小时
- 寄托币
- 146
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2009-12-13
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 114
- UID
- 2737856

- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 146
- 注册时间
- 2009-12-13
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - 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."
WORDS: 450
TIME: 45:00:10
DATE: 2009-12-22 19:35:19
In this editorial the author recommend that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River since recreational use of the river is likely to increase. To support his conclusion, he refers that 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 as a favorite form of recreation. Moreover, the author also cities that the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River which has been complained of its bad quality of the water. At first sight, the argument seems to be logical, but further reflection shows that it is lack of several logical flaw preventing it from invulnerable.
The flaw involves in the unwarranted assumption that recreational use of the river is likely to increase.
Since we are not informed of the details of those surveys, we cannot admit that the result is reliable. If all the respondents are required to choose their favorite form of recreation from alternatives, the result is probably distorted when these alternatives fail to include the very form of recreation. Even though water sports are their favorite, it is also possible that people prefer enjoying these sports in other places rather than Mason River even though the water has been cleaned.
The second flaw of the editorial is that the author believes the water will be surely clean if the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. When a river is polluted, the attempt of recovery requires a well designed plan, enough money, cooperation and quite a long time. If the plan isn't designed scientifically, the clean program is short of investment, or different departments of the government fail to cooperate well, the plan would probably end up with a failure.
Last but not the least, the author hasn't offered any information that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River need any improvements. It is entirely possible that the facilities along the Mason River have been updated recently. Besides, if we are not sure whether the recreational use of the river will increase, it is irresponsible to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River with the money from taxpayers.
In summary, to make the proposed opinion more reasonable, the author need to conduct a survey to make sure the reason why citizens seldom use the Mason River. Moreover, he is also expected to have an actually prediction of the plans. Finally, the author has better ensure that the publicly owned lands along the Mason River deserve improvements.
|
|