Flyer 杀G 组 BY Selina A 137 写完咯，可以睡觉啦

selinashenUID: 2736030

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: 324
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-9 下午 11:28:31

This article is trying to persuade government to increase its investment in the publicly owned land along the Mason River by proving that the Mason River will increase its recreational function after the clean-up project. However, this argument does not provide cogent and convincible evidences to prove that Manson River will increase its recreation after cleaning up.

The first error comes from the credibility and validity of the survey. It does not incite the number of samples. We don't know whether these samples have representative functions. If this survey only asks those residents who love water sports, then this survey has made the population specification error and it will lose its credibility. From this argument, we don't know how many percent of people are in favor of water sports. And we don't know how many percent of the local residents have been participated in this survey, if the whole residents were 30 million, and this survey only asked 500 residents, then this survey still lose its validity.

Complaints about the quality of the water are also questionable. We need to know where are these complaints come from. If these complaints are from only few people who happened to be workers of some company which wants to do the clean-up project of Mason River. This complaints may be forged.
Even these compliants are from residents, we can not hastely draw the conclusion that residents must be avoiding the river for recreation due the quality problem. There may be other concerns such as local residents would prefer another place for water sports, or this his not the best season to take water sports. As the argument claims that " residents seldom use the Mason River for any kind of recreatioanl activity" , this argument is too vague, "seldom" does not indicate the percentage and we don't know long they have observed the recreational issue.

The third concern is about the assumption that recreational use of the river is likely to increase. There is no evidence-based warrant to prove that local residents will go to Mason River for recreation if the water quality improves. And the budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River will have to be considered after taking another more detailed survey. A more accurate survey might be needed before the whole project starts.

Hence, this is a ill-conceived argumentation. The governemt can not  increase the investment on the improvement project along the Mason River on the basis of such argument.

柏拉图的世界UID: 2581296

1# selinashen
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: 324
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-9
下午
11:28:31
This article is trying to persuade government to increase its investment in the publicly owned land along the Mason River by proving that the Mason River will increase its recreational function after the clean-up project. However, this argument does not provide cogent and convincible evidences to prove that Manson River will increase its recreation after cleaning up.//最好不要说evidence有问题，而是说逻辑上有问题。
The first error comes from the credibility and validity of the survey. It does not incite the number of samples. We don't know whether these samples have representative functions. If this survey only asks those residents who love water sports, then this survey has made the population specification error and it will lose its credibility. From this argument, we don't know how many percent of people are in favor of water sports. And we don't know how many percent of the local residents have been participated in this survey, if the whole residents were 30 million, and this survey only asked 500 residents, then this survey still lose its validity.

Complaints about the quality of the water are also questionable. We need to know where are these complaints come from. If these complaints are from only few people who happened to be workers of some company which wants to do the clean-up project of Mason River. This complaints may be forged.
Even if these compliants are from residents, we can not hastely draw the conclusion that residents must be avoiding the river for recreation due the quality problem. There may be other concerns such as local residents would prefer another place for water sports, or this his not the best season to take water sports. As the argument claims that " residents seldom use the Mason River for any kind of recreatioanl activity" , this argument is too vague, "seldom" does not indicate the percentage and we don't know long they have observed the recreational issue.//提出seldom的问题似乎与本段前半部分没什么联系。
The third concern is about the assumption that recreational use of the river is likely to increase. There is no evidence-based warrant to prove that local residents will go to Mason River for recreation if the water quality improves. And the budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River will have to be considered after taking another more detailed survey. A more accurate survey might be needed before the whole project starts究竟是什么more detailed survey呢？最好能说明.

Hence, this is a ill-conceived argumentation. The governemt can not  increase the investment on the improvement project along the Mason River on the basis of such argument.

To conclude,
攻击点都比较到位，看不出大的问题。但请注意ETS强调过，需要攻击的是作者的reasoning，而不是evidence的好坏（survey倒是可以被质疑）。
论点 5
论据 4.5
论证 4
语言 5
综合 4.625=4.5