Argument137 希望大家扔砖头，限时成功

sdkenyyUID: 2128283

Argument137  第4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：30分3秒     428 words
从2005年7月18日21时58分到2005年7月18日22时30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.'
------正文------
  In this argument, the author makes a conclusion that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to publicly owned lands due to recreational use of the river likely to increase. To substantiate the conclusion, the author provides reasons below.  First, surveys rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation. In addition, the author cites that the agency is about to clean up the river so that people can use it. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible. Yet, after close scrutiny, there are some fatal fallacies in the argument.
  First of all, the author makes the conclusion based on the survey, which shows that residents consistently appreciate water sports. However, lacking of sufficient information, such as where and how the survey is conducted, who respond to it,  the argument is not convincing at all, the author could not reasonably make the conclusion.
  Secondly, even if it is granted that the survey could represent the general idea, the author assumes that residents avoid the river because it is not clean enough. It may be not necessarily the case. The author should take other factors into consideration. It is entirely possible that the residents avoid the river because of its location, which is too far from the residental area.  Without concerning other factors, the conclusion is groundless.
  Another conspicuous problem should be pointed out is that the author assumes situation will be change under the plan of the agency. But it is not probable the case. The author could not provide sufficient evidence to show the plans are able to clean up the Mason River. It is possible that the river is too polluted to be cleaned up. If so, recreational use of the river is not likely to increase.
  Finally, the author could not establish the causal connection between the increase recreational use of the river and that the council need to increase it budget for the improvements to the publicly owned lands. The author could not provide sufficient information about the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. Maybe it is in a perfect condition that most residents could enjoy playing on it. Lacking of a detail analysis of the connection, the author could not make the conclusion convincing.
  To sum up, the author fails to validate the conclusion that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more sufficient information to support the argument, such as a more convincing survey, the causal relationship.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-19 at 11:32 ]