今天正式开始砸argument这口锅：投资河边娱乐设施~真诚求拍

theopenwindow

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.

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.

(黄色高亮度的是后来查改出来的词)

In the argument, the author confidently asserted that the city government should devote more money to riverside recreational facilities for 3 basic reasons: 1) some surveys in which many citizens express their favor in water sports. 2) the situation that the river is rarely used and devotion from government is little. 3) for many complaints about the quality and smell of the river there is a promising clean plan of the government. Even though so many reasons seemingly cogent were used by the author, there are logical fallacies in every reason as follows.



For the first, the author used surveys of Mason City residents ranking water sports among their favorite recreational activities. But we have deep reasons about the' surveys' on the credibility. Who are the conductors of such surveys? Are they professional scientists, social workers, government officials or some agents bearing benefit with such a budget allocating funds on river? For another thing, how is the survey designed? Are they designed with scientist standards indifferently, objectively and fairly, without any misleading questions in the survey? And when it comes to a survey, the samples are quite important for the efficiency, are they from different occupations, different locations, different ages? Maybe most of them are from a water sports club, of course, then they will reports their favorite activity is water sports. Even though all the questions could be answered quite just and suitable for an accurate survey, it can’t say the people like water sports in the river. Perhaps they have their own familiar choice around some lake, some park with water, or like swimming just in the swimming pool in residential communities. Then author’s assumption, that if most like water sports, they will come around river, is far from cogent.



For the second, from the situation in the argument that the river is rarely used and devotion is little have such an assumption: if the government devote much more fund on the river using, the river will be used better for entertainments and sports. But the author forgot to consider why the river is used limit for sports? May be the river floor is very steep and dangerous which is not suitable for swimming, boating or fishing. And perhaps due to the special geology conditions of the river, it has been mainly used for hydroelectric power a lot. There is another possibility that years ago the former government tried the construction of the river, but it failed. Then based on such reasons the implication that using for water sports will be rich after the devotion will be not cogent.



Thirdly, based on the response to the complaints about river smell and bad quality, the author comments that the use of the river for water sports is increasing. The assumption is problematic. Does the announcement to clean the river will do effectively to clean the river? Maybe the pollution and weak situation of the river comes from the nearby factory for a long time, so only cleaning up, even huge efforts coming from the government, will it do ultimately to the problem? And we must be clear that announcement doesn't equal to action in reality, we don't know whether it can be implemented fast. If the cleaning will be done for one year or even more, the promising budget for the next year on recreational facilities' construction is totally unnecessary.


So, in order to improve the accurate and the cogence of the argument, the author must do such efforts: making sure of the objectivity and science of the survey, as well as the attitude of the mass to the promising river recreational facilities; the geography condition of the river and its fitness for entertainment use; the practical degree of the announcement. Based on all these issues be assured, the idea to devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational facilities is reasonable.

竹林中人

感觉反驳的没有到点上，继续恶补

竹林中人

have such an assumption，ｈａｖｅ的主语是ｔｈａｔ？

竹林中人

deep reasons about the' surveys' on the credibility？这个是什么意思？
关于对调查的质疑，你这么处理是不很合适的，一般不质疑他的结果是否真实，而质疑这个结果是否具有说服力或者说是调查的科学性，再就是调查结论和题目之间存在的假设或者前提，比如这个调查，你可以说的，他们说他们喜欢水上运动，不代表他们一定会参与其中，也许他们只是喜欢看别人的比赛，所以这里存在的一个假设就是他们喜欢水上运动，就一定愿意参与ＰＳ：不要这么一直这么反问，通过你一串的分析论述之后再来一个反问反而更有气势。

theopenwindow

不是。。。。accuracy/veracity
论述上力度怎么样？

普渡哥

So, in order to improve the accurate and the cogence of the argument,。。。

accurate 是名词吗？