Argument137 水岸治理

shanekunUID: 2104358

两天没有A了，手明显生了，望大家严查，纠错，谢谢！


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------
The author suggests an increasing of budget to improve the facilitation of public lands along the Mason river, because he regards that the single reason preventing the citizen's recreation on this river is the unclean water, which would be remarkably improved according to the announcement of agency. However, he neglects other possible factors contributing to the absence of such recreation, in addition, over estimated the agency's claim which would not as effective as he considered.

A threshold assumption upon which the arguer's claim relies is that the citizens of Mason City really prefer the water sport as the recreation activities. In the survey he cited, he neither provided the profile of the respondents, nor interpreted how the survey was conducted, so the sample would be not statistically reliable to make sure that the most of Mason citizens are water sports lover. For example, if the survey was conducted at a leisure center with water recreation facilities or an water sports club, the club member would be naturally enthusiastic in those programs such as the swimming and boating. Nevertheless the club member's selection does not necessarily present all the citizen's preference with respect to recreation activities. Thus the prediction that more and more citizens is going to attend the regions along the river is unsubstantiated.

Secondly, given that plenty of people in Mason prefer water sports as recreation activities, I see no persuasive evidence which contribute to the cause-effect relationship between the absence of citizens to the Mason River and the bad quality of water in river. In fact, there probably exist other reasons preventing citizens to enjoy swimming or fishing there. For example, the Mason river is so deep and the water in it is extremely cold, which would make the swimming dangerous, consequently the citizens will not take such activities, which are no longer recreation, but dangerous risking. In addition, the turbulence also render it dangerous for boating in it, instead people choose the water sports club or leisure recreation center to enjoy the same funs. As a result, even if the agency make effective and immediate improving to clean the water, the citizens would still resist to risk their lives in this river for their own sake.

Last but not the least, the author is over optimistic in the work of agency. Although the agency made announcement of their plan, they do not provide a time-table of their projected, nor pointed out how clear it would turn out to be, if the promoted level of water still inadequate for swimming or fishing. Moreover, announcement is one thing, actual progressing is another thing. The arguer provide no further information to assure that the progress of cleaning would not encounter problems especially the financial investments. If the progress is not immediately available, how to persuade the water sport lover come and have fun?

In the final analysis, the author did not confirm the real preference of citizens, more over, he also fails to take into consideration other reasons why the people do not choose river as the recreation site. Therefore, before hasty prediction, the arguer should take further studies to identify the actual cause of the problem.

alcestisUID: 2101945

The author suggests an increasing of budget to improve the facilitation of public lands along the Mason river, because he regards that the single reason preventing the citizen's recreation on this river is the unclean water, which would be remarkably improved according to the announcement of agency. However, he neglects other possible factors contributing to the absence of such recreation, in addition, over estimated the agency's claim which would not as effective as he considered.

A threshold assumption upon which the arguer's claim relies is that the citizens of Mason City really prefer the water sport as the recreation activities. In the survey he cited, he neither provided the profile of the respondents, nor interpreted how the survey was conducted, so这个地方so感觉不大对劲，你翻成中文想一下 the sample would be not statistically reliable to make sure that the most of Mason citizens are water sports lover. For example, if the survey was conducted at a leisure center with water recreation facilities or an water sports club, the club members would be naturally enthusiastic in those programs such as the swimming and boating. Nevertheless the club member's selection does not necessarily present all the citizen's preference with respect to recreation activities. Thus the prediction that more and more citizens is going to attend the regions along the river is unsubstantiated.

Secondly, given that plenty of people in Mason prefer water sports as recreation activities, I see no persuasive evidence which contribute to the cause-effect relationship between the absence of citizens to the Mason River and the bad quality of water in river. In fact, there probably exist other reasons preventing citizens to enjoy swimming or fishing there. For example, 后面都是你假设的内容 最好不要用那样肯定的语气来叙述 可以加上maybe 或possilbe the Mason river is so deep and the water in it is extremely cold, which would make the swimming dangerous, consequently the citizens will not take such activities, which are no longer recreation, but dangerous risking. In addition, the turbulence also render it dangerous for boating in it, instead people choose the water sports club or leisure recreation center to enjoy the same funs. As a result, even if the agency makes effective and immediate improving to clean the water, the citizens would still resist to risk their lives in this river for their own sake.

Last but not the least, the author is over optimistic in the work of agency. Although the agency made announcement of their plan, they do not provide a time-table of their projected, nor pointed out how clear it would turn out to be, if the promoted level of water still inadequate for swimming or fishing. Moreover, announcement is one thing, actual progressing is another thing可去掉. The arguer provide no further information to assure that the progress of cleaning would not encounter problems especially the financial investments. If the progress is not immediately available, how to persuade the water sport lover come and have fun?

In the final analysis, the author did not confirm the real preference of citizens, more over, he also fails to take into consideration other reasons why the people do not choose river as the recreation site. Therefore, before hasty prediction, the arguer should take further studies to identify the actual cause of the problem.
不错~~主要错误都批出了
有一些语法错误
还有 不要总是用for example
祝考好！！！