- UID
- 752455
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-4-24
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
16) In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
攻击点
1是否心里喜欢就参加这些运动
2水质是否是他们不参加运动的原因 即是否改善水质就会有人去参加水上运动会
3现在的budget是否真的不够
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The argument is well presented yetfar-fetched. It lays a claim that the city government should devote more moneyto riverside facilities. Nevertheless, the argument is in effect unreasonabledue to several false assumptions in the article such as local residents like todo water sport in that river, people donot play in the river because its water quality and smile, and is the budget atpresent is not enough. These logical fallacies can be diagnosed after a close scrutiny,albeit they may appear plausible at a cursory glance.
To begin with, a threshold problem in theargument is that whether local folks really want to do water sports in thatriver. It seems most of the men are willing to watch ball games no matterbasketball or baseball, but how many percentage of them are truly ball gameplayers is still unknown. Some question happen in the Mason city
that the author assumed peoplelike water sports as players of these sports. This is of course unreasonable.Without provide necessary evidence, the conclusion seems dubious at best.
In spite of the people's interests in watersports, the argument maintains ill-conceived. The author blames the waterquality and smile as reasons of people's unwillingness to play in the river.Absolutely, other explanation can be doubted such as the river bank is notsuitable for sunbath, the traffic along the river is too annoying even foranyone to swim in the water. So the author assumed that is soon the state spendmoney to improve the water quality, people will play in the river is not assimple as he describes. Failure to explain away other scenarios compromises thecredence of argument.
Even assuming that people will play in thewater after the water quality improvement, the argument is problematic in theauthor's assumption that the budget at present needs to be added. Litterthrough it may seems, it is totally possible that this tiny budget is farenough for local residents to swim, to fish and so other not so expensivesports. These economical ways of exercise can lead to a win-win situation thatpeople enjoy their leisure time while the government does not to pay themmuch. So adopting the author's proposalof adding budget will certainly undermine, rather than benefit the conclusion.
In retrospect, it seems precipitous for theauthor to jump into the conclusion based on a series of problematic premises.To dismiss the specter of implausible, the author ought to provide evidencethat people's interests towards doing water sports, the effect of water qualityand the budget's really situation in details. After all, feckless attempts witha fallible method can be nothing but a fool's errand. Thus only by grasping thegist of argument can the author deduce a convincible conclusion.
真心谢谢提意见的亲！ |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-7-13 20:37:57
收藏
收藏
楼主
