137The 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."
In this editorial, the author claims that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget, citing the "facts" and "evidence" : (1)the situation, the avoiding of river, is about to change with the announced plan to clean up Mason River; (2) recreational use of the river is likely to increase. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection, reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument. From the logical perspective, this argument suffers from several flaws as follows.
First and foremost, the arguer attempts to prove that the plan will be effective to clean up river. Common sense tells us that the pollution is effortless, while the progress to recover is effortful. It is entirely possible that the agency have been put forward some plans concerning with the pollution; however it is in vain ,whatever the reason is--the low effect of agency or the difficulty of cleaning--the result remains here: residences avoid these. The author ignores these possibilities so that make an implausible conclusion.
Secondly, there is no evidence showed that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase, even if the plan is effective and the river turns clear again. Nevertheless, the arguers asserts that ignoring other factors which maybe play a far more essential role in deciding whether the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. As a matter of fact, it is very likely that residences have found other recreation in place of the rank water sports--after all, they have dropped it for such a long time. From this point, maybe the recreational use of the river will never increase. Obviously, the arguer belittles these reasons, and then draws an unconvincing assumption.
Finally, even though the recreational use is increased, whether the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly should not be decided assertively. On the one hand, without the budget, will the tendency continue? If so, there is no necessity to increase its budget to support the recreation use. On the other hand, do we have enough money to support other aspects of society, such as the education and commercial? If not, the budget on the use of river should also be cancelled rather than put more emphasis on it--after all, as a popular saying goes.” A man without money is no man at all". It is a pity that the arguer ignores these factors, holding on other unimportant factors.
To sum up, this argument fails to stress his statement that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget, because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong enough support to what the arguer maintains. To make the argument more convincible, the arguer should have to offer more facts and details with regard to the effect of the plan. What's more, he would have to provide more information regarding that whether the residence should be back to do some rank water sports .Finally; he had better make a deep survey to acknowledge the circumstance of finance. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it could have become more thorough and logically acceptable.
In this editorial, the author claims that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget, citing the "facts" and "evidence". The argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection, reveals that it omits some substantial concerns that should be addressed in this argument. From the logical perspective, this argument suffers from several flaws as follows.
First and foremost, the arguer attempts to prove that the plan will be effective to clean up river. The pollution is effortless, while the progress to recover it is effortful. The agency might have been put forward some plans for the pollution, but it is in vain, for some reasons like the low effect of agency or the difficulty of cleaning. The author ignores these possibilities so that make an implausible conclusion.
Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. Nevertheless, the arguers asserts that ignoring other factors which maybe play a far more essential role in deciding whether the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. Actually, residences may have found other recreation in place of the rank water sports and have dropped it for such a long time. From this point, maybe the recreational use of the river will never increase. Obviously, the arguer belittles these reasons, and then draws an unconvincing assumption.
Finally, whether the Mason City council will need to increase the budget for improving the quality of the river should not be decided assertively. Without the budget, the tendency may continue and there is no necessity to increase the budget for such recreation. We also may not have enough money to support other aspects of society. So the arguer ignores these factors, holding on other unimportant factors.
To sum up, this argument fails to stress his statement that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget, without strong evidences. The arguer should offer more significant facts and information regarding the effect of the plan and the effects of doing rank water sports. Finally,a survey to acknowledge the circumstance of financeis needed. The changed argument will turn more thorough and logically acceptable.