ARGUMENT137 拍我吧

beckhangongUID: 2104229

ARGU 137  不知道怎么写了这道 自己都奇怪 随机抽的
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."
--ABSTRACT--
23:00-23:35 又是一篇没有准备提纲的高频 想到的很多 写出来的很少 郁闷
(493 words)

--OUTLINE--
1. 作者说由于以前有过水质量的投诉，所以居民肯定是因为不满意才不去用水做运动。 有过投诉，什么时候的投诉，多少人投诉，哪的人投诉的，都没有说。 另外，是不是百姓真的是因为水质量有问题才不去玩水呢，不一定，也许他们觉得水里面水草太多，不适合运动，（或者大家很忙，没有时间）--这个是写完了想到的
2. announce了就一定会做么，不一定。也许就是迫于政府的压力，就算要做也可能拖很长的时间。这也就不能导致情况的改变
3. 情况会好转，玩水的人会多起来，能多到什么程度呢？最关键的，投资河边的土地跟这有什么直接的关系？没有，也许百姓就是喜欢河边原来的样子才来玩水的呢，再者，土地的开发可能会导致河水的污染，从而又一次导致玩水的人数下降。

--正文--
The argument is well-presented but not well-reasoned. By considering the announcement from agency responsible for rivers would change the situation of Mason River(MR) use to better state, citing the ever complaints about the quality of the water to analyze the reason seldom use of MR, the conclusion that Mason City council should increase its budget for improving the publicly owned lands along the MS seems logical. However, a careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless it is.

To begin with, the arguer claims firstly residents in Mason must be avoiding the river because they think the river is not clean since there have been complaints about the quality of the water. However, the auger does not supply the reasonable information to support it, since lacking of when the complaints were happened, how many complaints were there, what kind of people complained. Perhaps, the complaints happened in many years ago, and the bad situation is already changed, or only one person have complained the water's quality, or only the residents living besides lower part of the river have complained. In addition, seldom use of MR maybe not only because the one reason. It is possible that the residents thought there are many water grass in the water and thus it is hard to do recreational activities as well. So all the reasons that influence the seldom use MR by residents should be well considered as a whole.

Secondly, the author thinks the situation is about to change since the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up MD. But the announcement would not necessarily cause the change of the situation, since maybe the agency department only publishes the announcement because of the pressure from government, or they would do some actions after a long time period from the announcement. Without any result comes out, one can not predict what would happen next.

In addition, the conclusion that Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MR based on that recreational use of the river is likely to increase is vague. Is there any correlation between the reason and the result? There is no   evidence reveals that the residents would increase their interest in the publicly owned lands along the MR after increase use of MR for recreation. Maybe the people only need the places along the river to be their original image without any development, or improvements of the lands would lead to pollution of the river and decrease the use again.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidences cited in the analysis does not lend strong supports to what the arguer claims. To better evaluate the argument, the author should supply more information about real reason of seldom use of the river, and consider more carefully the relationship between the river situation and government's policy. Otherwise the argument is logically unaccepted.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-7-22 at 00:22 ]

fruitzebraUID: 183366

先占个座，等会来拍

fruitzebraUID: 183366

水平有限，只是改一下低级错误，呵呵。还不知道改的对不对？而且只是看了正文部分。:lol

To begin with, the arguer claims  firstly（有了to begin with,是不是把firstly去掉。） that residents in Mason must be avoiding the river because they think the river is not clean since there have been complaints about the quality of the water. However, the auger does not supply the (substitute “the” with “any”?) reasonable information to support it, since lacking of (directly using “lacking”) when the complaints were happened, how many complaints were there, what kind of people complained. Perhaps, the complaints happened in many years ago, and the bad situation is already changed, or only one person have (has or had) complained the water's quality, or only the residents living besides lower part of the river have complained. In addition, seldom use of MR maybe not only because (because of) the one reason. It is possible that the residents thought there are many water grass (grasses) in the water and thus it is hard to do recreational activities as well(as well 是不是该去掉，好像没有什么用啊). So all the reasons that influence the seldom use （of）MR by residents should be well considered as a whole.

Secondly, the author thinks the situation is about to change since the agency responsible for rivers in our (the) region has announced plans to clean up MD. But the announcement would not necessarily cause the change of the situation, since maybe the agency department only publishes the announcement because of the pressure from government, or they would do some actions after a long time period from the announcement. Without any result comes (coming) out, one can not predict what would happen next.

In addition, the conclusion that Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MR based on (the assumption) that recreational use of the river is likely to increase is vague. Is there any correlation between the reason and the result? (????) There is no evidence reveals (revealing) that the residents would increase their interest in the publicly owned lands along the MR after increase (increasing the) use of MR for recreation. Maybe the people only need the places along the river to be their original image without any development, or improvements of the lands would lead to pollution of the river and decrease the use again.我爱寄托

beckhangongUID: 2104229

THX

现在就是一顿狂写，一篇I+一篇A连着写

感谢啊 等我考完了一定来做贡献