- 最后登录
- 2009-7-12
- 在线时间
- 2 小时
- 寄托币
- 192
- 声望
- 0
- 注册时间
- 2007-1-15
- 阅读权限
- 15
- 帖子
- 0
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 276
- UID
- 2292520
![Rank: 2](template/archy_plt8/image/star_level2.gif)
- 声望
- 0
- 寄托币
- 192
- 注册时间
- 2007-1-15
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 0
|
TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - 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."
WORDS: 600 TIME: 0:30:00 DATE: 2007-2-23
The recommendation proposes in the editorial is that the Mason City (MC) council need to increase its budget from improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MC river for the reason that some evidence indicates that the use for recreational activities on Mc river is likely to increase. However, close scrutiny would reveal that the reasoning is deficient to support a credible conclusion.
To begin with, a threshold assumption upon with the argument relies is that people of MC do like water sports. Only by survey the report claiming that residents consistently rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation is insufficient to substantiate the assumption. It is highly possible that people in MC prefer watching water sports games, but barely tries it themselves, for the consideration of money, time, physique, and so on. Therefore, the author's assertion that recreational use of the river will increase is totally unfounded.
Even assuming that residents of MC love do water sports themselves, the author fails to convince us that they will go to MC River for these sports once the river is clean again. It is equally possible that there are already many alternatives for the residents and they might not bother to change a place for recreational activities. For instance, their may be several swimming pools and other facilities for fishing and boating in MC, with excellent shower rooms and strong security protection, which can barely acquire in the river. What is more, the outdoor sports places may not suitable for every one; the strong sun light might burn the skin and even cause cancer. Under these circumstances, there might be a considerable amount of people prefer to go to the original places for recreation activities. Therefore, the assumption that recreational use of the river is likely to increase is unwarranted.
Another flaw that undermines the logic of the argument is that there is no assurance that the water condition can be reversed. Although the agency promises to clean up MC River, as we know, it is difficult to amelioration than destruction. It is doubtful that if it can accomplish their goal or the cleaning up work will last for how long. Without these information, it is difficult to judge the water condition in the following years. As a consequence, promoting the council to increase its budget on the lands along the river is too soon to be accepted.
Before I come to my conclusion, another weak point that defeats the conclusion is that whether the lands along the river need to be improved. As there will be more people come to the river, the facilities along the river are surly essential. Nevertheless, without providing the information about the publicly owned lands at present, it is hastily to increase budget for them. Perhaps the lands have already well equipped. Hence, it is unreasonable for adding budgets on it. Maybe the facilities on the publicly owned lands is not enough for a large amount of people, however, considering that the water condition has not changed, and there will not be people in a short time, there is still unnecessary for increasing budgets now. The council can make the decision later.
To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Accordingly, it is presumpuous for the author to asset that the MC council should increase its budget for improving the lands along the river. To make his recommendation logically acceptable, the author would have to provide further information on the residents sports activities. The schedule of the cleaning process and the condition of the publicly owned lands along the river are also crucial when weighing the situation. |
|