argument137 同主题写作，大家都来拍啊！我改了很多次的！

xiliustreamUID: 205175

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 concludes that the quality of the water in the Mason River has lead the little use of recreational activity, and recommends increase in the budget in Mason City council to clean up the river. Although seems plausible at the first glance, careful scrutiny reveals that the reliability of the surveys and the complaints are all questionable, and the budget will probably a waste of money.

To begin with, the reliability of the surveys and the complaints are untenable as the arguer fails to supply with us detailed information. First, we need to know more about the surveys: Who had conducted these surveys? How is the process of these surveys? Is it representative? How does the investigator deal with the statistics? Is sit authoritative and credible? Without these details, I have enough reasons to question about the surveys, and it is possible that people’s favorite sports are others instead of water sports. With regard to the residents’ complains, it is even subjective which cannot indicate the exact condition of the water. Perhaps there are only two or three captious ones who complain about the water, and most of the residents quite satisfied with it. The actual quality of the water can only tested by chemical and biological experiments and people’s attitude is too subjective. So perhaps the quality of water is good, and most of the people may satisfy with it.

Even the surveys and the complaints are worthwhile to consider, the arguer fails to prove the case-and-effect relationship between the little use of the Mason River for recreational activity and the quality of the water. Common sense tells us, there are more factors which may also influence the use of the water. Maybe the water is flowing too rapid to go swimming, or too shallow and no fish exist, or too many stones there therefore dangerous for boating. Any of the scenarios will make the river not very suitable for water sports. And it is also possible that residents are busy working and have no time do such activities, or they take some other on-land activities instead. In addition, perhaps now the weather there is very cold, and it often rain therefore is undue for such activities.

Moreover, whether the measures carried out to clean the river can effect may still be under discussion. The project is a large one, which may includes a series of surveys, measures, management, and technologies, and it will surely take a lot of time. If the quality of the water is seriously bad, whether the council can make it clear enough for activities is also unknown. Even if they can accomplish this, people's idea about this river may have already fixed, and they may still be fear of carrying out such activities after the project is done, so the project may be a useless one.

Last but not least, before the budget is made, the council should consider who should be responsible for the money of the project and whether the public lands are in need of improvement. Perhaps this duty belongs to another branch of the government, but not the council. Perhaps the money that had been spent on this river is already enough but is not been make good use, so the council can only adjust the budget and maximize its effects. Perhaps the council can turn to other groups such as the volunteers of environment for money, or get money from the residents near the river. In addition, there is no information indicating that the publicly owned lands need to be improved, and it is possible that they are still in condition. In all, the budget of the council is totally unwarranted.

To sum up, more detailed surveys and reasonable analysis are needed before final conclusion and recommendation are made. The arguer fails to do it, and it may only lead to a waste of money.

xiliustreamUID: 205175

自己顶

星星之火UID: 2107154

argument137 同主题写作，大家都来拍啊！我改了很多次的！

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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer concludes that the quality of the water in the Mason River has lead the little use of recreational activity, and recommends increase in the budget in Mason City council to clean up the river. Although seems plausible at the first glance, careful scrutiny reveals that the reliability of the surveys and the complaints are all questionable, and the budget will probably a waste of money.

To begin with, the reliability of the surveys and the complaints are untenable as the arguer fails to supply with us detailed information. First, we need to know more about the surveys: Who had conducted these surveys? How is the process of these surveys? Is it representative? How does the investigator deal with the statistics? Is sit authoritative and credible? Without these details, I have enough reasons to question about the surveys, and it is possible that people’s favorite sports are others instead of water sports. With regard to the residents’ complains, it is even subjective which cannot indicate the exact condition of the water. Perhaps there are only two or three captious ones who complain about the water, and most of the residents （are）quite satisfied with it. The actual quality of the water can only tested by chemical and biological experiments and people’s attitude is too subjective. (这个地方感觉批得有点过了，毕竟水的脏净人们还是能感觉出来的)So perhaps the quality of water is good, and most of the people may satisfy with it.

Even the surveys and the complaints are worthwhile to consider, the arguer fails to prove the case-and-effect relationship between the little use of the Mason River for recreational activity and the quality of the water. Common sense tells us, there are more factors which may also influence the use of the water. Maybe the water is flowing too rapid to go swimming, or too shallow and no fish exist, or too many stones there therefore dangerous for boating. Any of the scenarios will make the river not very suitable for water sports. And it is also possible that residents are busy working and have no time do such activities, or they take some other on-land activities instead. In addition, perhaps now the weather there is very cold, and it often rain therefore is undue for such activities.（这一段批得很是精采啊,论据翔实，语言到位，值得学习！！）
Moreover, whether the measures carried out to clean the river can effect may still be under discussion. The project is a large one, which may includes a series of surveys, measures, management, and technologies, and it will surely take a lot of time. If the quality of the water is seriously bad, whether the council can make it clear enough for activities is also unknown. Even if they can accomplish this, people's idea about this river may have already （been）fixed, and they may still be fear of carrying out such activities after the project is done, so the project may be a useless one.

Last but not least, before the budget is made, the council should consider who should be responsible for the money of the project and whether the public lands are in need of improvement. Perhaps this duty belongs to another branch of the government, but not the council.(这一点好像牵强了点) Perhaps the money that had been spent on this river is already enough but is not been make good use, so the council can only adjust the budget and maximize its effects. Perhaps the council can turn to other groups such as the volunteers of environment for money, or get money from the residents near the river. In addition, there is no information indicating that the publicly owned lands need to be improved, and it is possible that they are still in condition. In all, the budget of the council is totally unwarranted.（我觉得钱得来源似乎不好作为批驳的重点，因为这个毕竟是符合常理的，重点还是放在后面的土地情况上！）

To sum up, more detailed surveys and reasonable analysis are needed before final conclusion and recommendation are made. The arguer fails to do it, and it may only lead to a waste of money.（结尾似乎略微简单了点，是时间不够了吗？）
没得说，这篇文章的逻辑确实够严谨，而且错误照得很到位，比我看的一些例文感觉还要好，加油啊，争取满分。
另外结尾略显仓促了点。

有时间能帮我指点一下吗？
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... p;page=1#pid1689871