argument137 0510G同主题 欢迎互拍

chesterdddUID: 209997

------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 the argument, the author recommends that the Manson city council should increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owed land along the Manson River. To support his recommendation , the author cites that a survey conducted among the local people indicates that It is the quality of the water that makes people unwilling to play along the river and the agency responsible for the rivers in the region has announced a plan to clean up the river and after that the recreational use of  the river is likely to increase .However , Careful scrutiny of the author's argument reveals several logical faults, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with , the author unfairly assume that after the river is cleaned up , the recreational use of the river will surly increase .The conclusion is untenable for two reasons  . First the author provides no information about the survey , which makes its credibility rather doubtful . Second the author ignores other factors make people away from the river .It is possible that the  water’s velocity is too fast or there are dangerous animals in the rivers thus make the river unsafe. Or the river itself is not appealing to the local people at all compared to a fantastic swimming pool in the city. The local people’s socioeconomic status may also be the reason why the people are unwilling to play along the river, If the economy is in depression , most people are working hard to earn their bread , and therefore don’t have much time for recreation. So, if the author can’t preclude the possibilities mentioned above , his argument is not convincing .

Further more , even granted that it is the quality of the water that make people unwilling to play along the river , there is no guarantee that the river will be soon effectively cleaned up . Dealing with pollution is not an easy job , it takes a long time and needs a lot of money  and a carefully devised plan . The agency responsible for the river only has the will to clean up the river and may  has not yet prepared the money and  the specific plan to do so. Even if the agency successfully clean the river. We have no idea that whether the quality of water can meet the people’s requirement and increase the recreational use of  MR.

In addition the author makes a hasty conclusion that the council should increase the budget for improvements to publicly owed land along the MR .It is possible that the facilities and land are in good condition and can accommodate the people and meet their requirements , thus  the additional invest makes no sense  and waste money .  

In conclusion, the author's recommendation is logically unwarranted. To strengthen it the author should provide evidence that the quality of water is the only reason for the people’ unwilling to play along the river  and the agency has the ability to effectively clean the river . To better evaluate the argument we also need more information of the current condition of the facilities along the MR .

chesterdddUID: 209997

顶一个,写得不好,多拍砖!

小玩UID: 2111777

In the argument, the author recommends that the Manson city council should increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owed owned land along the Manson River. To support his recommendation , the author cites that a survey conducted among the local people indicates that It is the quality of the water that makes people unwilling to play along the river and the agency responsible for the rivers in the region has announced a plan to clean up the river and after that the recreational use of  the river is likely to increase .However , Careful scrutiny of the author's argument reveals several logical faults, which render it unconvincing. 还是觉得长了点，虽然我的开头也不咋的。

To begin with , the author unfairly assume that after the river is cleaned up , the recreational use of the river will surly increase .The conclusion is untenable for two reasons  . First the author provides no information about the survey, which makes its credibility rather doubtful . Second the author ignores other factors make people away from the river .It is possible that the  water’s velocity is too fast or there are dangerous animals in the rivers thus make the river unsafe. Or the river itself is not appealing to the local people at all compared to a fantastic swimming pool in the city. The local people’s socioeconomic status may also be the reason why the people are unwilling to play along the river, If the economy is in depression , most people are working hard to earn their bread , and therefore don’t have much time for recreation.工作忙没时间很正常，但不一定要和经济萧条扯上关系吧？经济繁荣的时候也要努力工作的啊 So, if the author can’t preclude the possibilities mentioned above , his argument is not convincing .

Further more , furthermore even granted that it is the quality of the water that make people unwilling to play along the river , there is no guarantee that the river will be soon effectively cleaned up . Dealing with pollution is not an easy job , it takes a long time and needs a lot of money  and a carefully devised plan . The agency responsible for the river only has the will to clean up the river and may has not yet prepared the money and  the specific plan to do so. Even if the agency successfully clean the river. We have no idea that whether the quality of water can meet the people’s requirement 不错 and increase the recreational use of  MR.

In addition the author makes a hasty conclusion that the council should increase the budget for improvements to publicly owed owned land along the MR .It is possible that the facilities and land are in good condition and can accommodate the people and meet their requirements , thus  the additional invest makes no sense  and waste money .  可以的话再编个啥理由再充实点，显得有点太少了。

In conclusion, the author's recommendation is logically unwarranted. To strengthen it the author should provide evidence that the quality of water is the only reason for the people’ unwilling to play along the river  and the agency has the ability to effectively clean the river . To better evaluate the argument we also need more information of the current condition of the facilities along the MR. 结尾比我写得好~！和论证联系起来了的，我怎么就做不到，哭~~

有个格式问题，先打标点再空格~！

至于MR的缩写怎么用我也不太清楚，你最好问问有经验的那样子行不行，因为你前面好像没有说明MR＝Mason River的句子或词。反正我的原则是如果不长就尽量写完整~当然就是个时间问题了~

sunwuliangUID: 157651

In the argument, the author recommends that the Manson city council should increase the budget for improvements to the publicly owed land along the Manson River. To support his [or her不要搞性别歧视哈，遇到女权主义者改你的作文你就玩完了] recommendation , the author cites that a survey conducted among the local people indicates that It is the quality of the water that makes people unwilling to play along the river and the agency responsible for the rivers in the region has announced a plan to clean up the river and after that the recreational use of  the river is likely to increase .However , Careful scrutiny of the author's argument reveals several logical faults, which render it unconvincing.
[开头不错哈，标准的模版, 条理也里的很清楚]
To begin with , the author unfairly assume [注意第三人称单数,你老犯的错误哈]that after the river is cleaned up , the recreational use of the river will surly increase .The conclusion is untenable for two reasons  . First the author provides no information about the survey , which makes its credibility rather doubtful . Second the author ignores other factors[which] make people away from the river .It is possible that the  water’s velocity is too fast or there are dangerous animals in the rivers thus make the river unsafe. Or the river itself is not appealing to the local people at all compared to a fantastic swimming pool in the city. The local people’s socioeconomic status may also be the reason why[that] the people are unwilling to play along the river, If the economy is in depression , most people are working hard to earn their bread , and therefore don’t have much time for recreation. So, if the author can’t preclude the possibilities mentioned above , his argument is not convincing .

Further more , even granted that it is the quality of the water that make people unwilling to play along the river , there is no guarantee that the river will be soon effectively cleaned up. Dealing with pollution is not an easy job , it takes a long time and needs a lot of money  and a carefully devised plan . The agency responsible for the river only has the will to clean up the river and may  has not yet prepared the money and  the specific plan to do so. Even if the agency successfully clean the river. We have no idea that whether[去掉] the quality of water can meet the people’s requirement and increase the recreational use of  MR.

In addition the author makes a hasty conclusion that the council should increase the budget for improvements to publicly owed land along the MR .It is possible that the facilities and land are in good condition and can accommodate the people and meet their requirements , thus  the additional invest makes no sense  and waste[wastes] money .  

In conclusion, the author's recommendation is logically unwarranted. To strengthen it[,] the author should provide evidence that the quality of water is the only reason for the people’ unwilling to play along the river  and the agency has the ability to effectively clean the river . To better evaluate the argument[, ] we also need more information of the current condition of the facilities along the MR .

开头,结尾和中间的段落照应的不错,但是中间的段落有几个假设是不是有些不当?

总体感觉论证的层次感不错, 攻击一个错误,然后退一步, 再攻击另一个,这种方法值得学习哈.

chesterdddUID: 209997

欢迎光临！