ARGUMENT137 V6站队 8.4 同主题

mrealUID: 201732

参考大家意见修改过了，不过似乎又有些乱了，唉~大家再帮忙看看吧！

超时三分~~~谢谢大家拍！！！

Argument137  
450words
------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 arguer asserts that it needs to increase Mason City (MC)'s budget to improve their publicly owned lands along the Mason River (MR).He cites a survey to show that M's residents consider water sports to be their favorite recreation. In addition, the related agency promises to clean up the rivers to placate people's complaint about the rivers' condition. However, many obvious fallacies can be pointed out after scrutiny.
Firstly, the precondition of this argument that the river will become clean enough to residents’ requires lacks of any possible evidences. Only the responsible agency makes their plan, but no consequent measure is assured to take to comfort the residents about their complaint towards river's clearness.  There is no guarantee of the agency's work attitude and efficiency as well. Moreover, even though they take their promise, whether the final result will reach the residents' standard is unknown, either. If either of above assumptions is true, the arguer would be not confident with the recreational use of the river increasing.
Even assuming the result of agency's plan is in accordance with residents' expectation about the river, the cited survey's validation is open to question too. By relying on a survey the author assumes that the samplers' number is large enough to be representative and the result reflects overall opinion of the pool of potential residents who may participate in water sports in M river. Yet the author provides clear evidence about neither of the assumptions. Perhaps though residents treat water sports as their favorite ones, they would not prefer to do those sports outdoor in the Mason River rather than keep those indoor only. That is to say, the cited survey showing that residents are not content with the quality of water in river is just complaint, even the water quality improves, not would residents raise their interests to the water sports in M river.
Another serious problem with the argument is that it is presumptuous of the arguer to insist to increase M's budget for the lands along M river. There is no escaping the fact that the recreational use of M River may possibly increase for all the facets are perfect for residents to enjoy water sports, nevertheless, establishing the unnecessary correlation of this point with the more frequent use of the lands along the rivers lends no concrete evidences to support this argument. To people's common sense, those mentioned water sports is requisite of few equipments on land, which proves the arguer's assumption to be unwarranted.
To sum up, the arguer fails to convince us that the necessity of increasing budget of the construction on the lands along the river. To bolster the argument, a detailed survey about whether the residents would love to take their favorite sports in M River needs to be provided. Besides, to better evaluate the argument, it is necessary to know the work efficiency of the plan taking agency too.

[ Last edited by mreal on 2005-8-5 at 11:58 ]

vico8478UID: 2120997

------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 arguer asserts that there is need （改为it needs是不是更好）to increase Mason City (MC)'s budget to improve their publicly owned lands along the Mason River (MR).He cites a survey to show that M's residents consider water sports to be their favorite recreation. In addition, the related agency promises to clean up the rivers to placate people's complaint about the rivers' condition. （这句总结的不错哟）However, many obvious fallacies can be pointed out after a careful scrutiny.（scrutiny本身就是仔细检查的意思，这样用好像不是很好）
Firstly, the precondition of this argument that the river will become clean enough to residents’ requires lacks of any possible evidences. Only the responsible agency makes their plan, but none（no） consequent measure is assured to take to comfort the residents about their complaint towards river's clearness.  There is no guarantee of the agency's work attitude and efficiency as well. Moreover, even though they take their promise, whether the final result will reach the residents' standard is unknown, either. If either of above assumptions is true, the arguer would be not confident with the recreational use of the river increasing.（语言还不错，而且条例清晰:hug:）
Even assuming the result of agency's plan is in accordance with residents' expectation about the river, the cited survey's validation is open to question too.（挺牛的嘛，现学现用:lol） By relying on a survey the author assumes that the samplers' number is large enough to be representative and the result reflects overall opinion of the pool of potential residents who may participate in water sports in M river. Yet the author provides clear evidence about neither of the assumptions. Perhaps though residents treat water sports as their favorite ones, they would not prefer to do those sports outdoor in the Mason River rather than keep those indoor only.
Another threshold（这词用的不对，threshold表示第一个） problem with the argument is that it is presumptuous of the arguer to insist to increase M's budget for the lands along M river. There is no escaping the fact that the recreational use of M River may possibly increase for all the facets are perfect for residents to enjoy water sports, nevertheless, establishing the unnecessary correlation of this point with the more frequent use of the lands along the rivers lends no concrete evidences to support this argument. To people's common sense, those mentioned water sports is requisite of few equipments on land, which proves the arguer's assumption to be unwarranted.（这段写的不好，模板运用得太多而没有什么实质性内容）
To sum up, the arguer fails to convince us that the necessity of increasing budget of the construction on the lands along the river. To bolster the argument, a detailed survey about whether the residents would love to take their favorite sports in M River needs to be provided. Besides, to better evaluate the argument, it is necessary to know the work efficiency of the plan taking agency too.

还有一个文章中的逻辑错误你没找到，就是关于complaints,关于水质的投诉不一定就是认为水脏，即使是认为水脏，作者也没有证明居民不去河边玩是由于觉得那里的水脏，也许还存在其他可能，比如他们很忙没时间玩，或河里有食人鱼啥的，嘿嘿:lol

[ Last edited by vico8478 on 2005-8-4 at 22:31 ]

dr_greenUID: 193584

你的思路是：质疑清理计划的执行情况；质疑那些surveys的可信度；质疑提高水上娱乐活动和河岸公共空地的利用情况之间的必然联系
我觉得前第一个body虽然很重要 但是应该不属于致命伤 用第一段来写有点浪费了

我想到的问题是
1. 水质是否真的很差，是否差到不能开展水上娱乐活动。如果不是 那么提高水质也不会有更多的娱乐活动
2. 水质差是否是活动少的根本原因
3.质疑水上活动和公共空地之间的关系
另外还有的两个是看到你写的才发现的 我们刚好可以互补一下＝）

[ Last edited by dr_green on 2005-8-5 at 11:44 ]