Argument137 0510G同主题写作第十三期

ryanqUID: 154025

Argument137  
432字。
二进宫第一篇
------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 argument, the author contends to offer financial support to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To buttress his contend, he argues that the reason for the reduced recreational activity along Mason River is that the quality of the water is not clean enough. And in the light of the announcement of cleaning up Mason River from the agency responsible for rivers, he concludes that recreational use of the river is probably to increase. There are several logic flaws in this argument which I lists as follows.

In the first place, complaints about the quality of the river does not necessarily lead to the the conclusion that it is the main reason that the local people seldom use the nearby Mason River. It is possible that complaints about the quality is on a drinking level while clean enough is the water of the river for any sports. The reduction in number nearby Mason River may due to another new built man-made swimming pool. And to be extreme, the recent weather condition may not be suitable for sports outside.  Both reasons can account for this reduction. So the author's proving does not stand on the ground at this point.

Second of all, though the agency responsible for rivers has announced plans to clean up Mason River, it is hasty to make the conclusion that recreational use of the river is possibly to increase. There are many things for the agency to do after the announcement such as investigation, making plans and raising money which are all important factors for the cleaning and can cost rather long time. Definitely residents will not go to the river without the finish of cleaning work. Even after finishing cleaning by the agency, residents may deny playing in the Mason River if they do not think it is clean enough. Therefore, increasing recreational use of the river is not out of questions in light of only an announcement.  

Last but not least, it is not fairly to require the government to budget on publicly own land nearby the river. No evident evinces that the public land needs improving. Though the water's quality is not good which is still in questions, land nearby may already be protected well with the existing financial support from city council.
  
To sum up, the advice advanced by the author does not stand on the ground since evidence provided is far from credible. More information concerning the altitudes of residents towards the river quality should be collected along with a more logical reasoning to make the author’s allegation persuasive and feasible.

fishjoyUID: 2116013

up,一会儿有空来看:)

fishjoyUID: 2116013

我是argu菜鸟，不知提的意见对不对，望包涵。
1.对攻击点的排序应是从主到次，你的排列有点混乱
2.语言仍需改进
加油:)

babykoalaUID: 2122952

just a minute please