Argument137 努力尝试限时的成果

bnugirlUID: 2103958

Argument137  第7篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：35分2秒     381 words
从2005年7月4日20时43分到2005年7月4日21时35分
------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.'

提纲：
1。娱乐活动少不代表别的活动少。（发电），养鱼
2。人们很少在河水旁可能不是与河水不干净没有因果关系
3。就算弄干净了，也未必娱乐活动会增加。
4。Mason City德政府未必就要为其做budget. (此点由于时间关系，未写)
------正文------
In this argument, the author claims that the Mason City council should increase its budget to improve the public lands along the Mason River. To support this conclusion, he points out that the residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for recreational activities because they think the river is not clean, and the agency responsible for it is likely to clean up the river. In several respects, however, the evidence lends little credible support for this argument.

     First, the author overlooks other possible activities which are not recreational the river maybe made use of. It is entirely possible that the speed of the water in Mason River is so fast that the government build a power plant above the river and people are afraid of get close to it; It is also like that someone has already rent the river to feed a great number of fishes there and refuse others to get near to the river. Without ruling out this and other possibilities, the author cannot convince me that the residents actually didn't use that river.

    Secondly, even if the residents do seldom use the river, the author unfairly assumes that it is attributable to the bad quality of the river's water. Perhaps there is another river much near the city and has a more beautiful scene than the Mason River, so people choose to go there; Or perhaps the Mason River is too shallow for the residents to swim in or boat on it; or perhaps the seasons when the Mason River has no water is too long so that people lose interest in it. Any of these scenarios, if true, would undermine the author's conclusion.

      Thirdly, the mere fact that the agency is to clean up the river is little indication that recreational use of the river will increase. On the one hand, the author provides no evidence to substantiate that the river will certainly be clean after these procedures. On the other hand, even if the river is indeed clean that time, it is also hardly for the residents to accept this fact and go to the Mason River for fun. Since the author fails to rule out these and other possibilities, I remain unconvinced with the assumption that recreational activities nearby the river will increase.

    In conclusion, without additional information about the entirely use of the river and the water quality of it, the government should refrain from following the author's recommendation. To better access this argument, I would need to know why people seldom use the Mason River for recreational activity use. I would also need to know that what the result of the cleaning will be and the residents' attitudes toward the river after the cleaning.

[ Last edited by bnugirl on 2005-8-4 at 21:33 ]