Argument 137 高频

dreamcolorUID: 2120960

In this editorial, the arguer suggests that the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To substantiate this, the arguer attributes the reason why Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for recreational activities to their dissatisfaction about the quality of the water in the river. Moreover, the arguer mentions that the agency responsible for rivers has announced plans to clean up Mason River, which will lead to the increasing recreational use of the river. However, the argument is based on a series of unfounded assumptions and therefore is unconvincing as it stands.
   In the first place, the arguer unfairly assumes that the complaints about the quality of the water in the river are responsible for the reluctance of the residents to use the river for recreational activities. However, the arguer does not provide enough evidence. The mere preference in water sports of the residents does not necessarily show that the residents will spontaneously tend to exploit the river for recreational activities. What is more, the arguer overlooks other possibilities that might account for the current situation. Perhaps the city has already had plenty of places for water sports, and these places are cleaner and safer, as well as less expensive. Or perhaps there are danger fish in the river, so the residents dare not play in the river. Without ruling out these possibilities, the arguer cannot establish a convincing causal relationship concerning the complaints and the preference for not using the river for recreational activities.
   In the second place, the arguer unfounded assumes once the agency has clean up Mason River, the recreational use of the river will increase. Nevertheless, this may not be the truth since many other factors, such as the safety of the equipment for recreational activities, or the environment of the neighborhood, as well as comparison among recreational places, may all account for the choice of the residents. Absent of these crucial information, the arguer's assumption is dubious at best.
   Last but not least, the arguer suggests that the publicly owned lands along the river need improvement. However, this assertion lacks necessary evidence since no evidence about the current condition of the lands is given. Perhaps the lands are in good condition and only a small portion of the present budget for the river is needed to suit it for recreational use. In short, the arguer fails to illustrate the necessity for more budgets and thus does not well support the suggestion.
   To sum up, the argument is flawed in several aspects and not persuasive to assert the arguer's suggestion in all. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should delve in and scrutinize the reason why residents rarely use the river for recreation. To better evaluate the argument, we need more information for the necessity of increasing budgets for improvement to the publicly owned lands along Mason River.