第一篇限时，argument137【4月同心砥砺组】第4周 第1次

同心砥砺UID：2600324

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: 416          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009/3/9 16:28:42

In this augument, the author drew the conclution about the increase of recreational use of the Mason River, after his/her seemingly convincing procedure of reasoning, and suggested the City council to increase the budget for the improvement of lands along Mason River. As far as I see it, this argument omits some sunbstential information, and therefor suffers some logical fallacies.

To begin with, the author falsely established a causal relationship between the complaint about the quality of the water and the seldom using of the nearby River for recreational activity. Although the two things happened simultaneously, but there are pobably many other reasons for seldom using of the water, too. For example, in the city there is a swimming pool, which supplies a good service and has new infrastructure. So the residents prefer going there to siwmming in the river. Like swimming pool, other places, such as park and artifical lack, will attract people as well. Without providing us the information about other places in the city, the author's assumption is invalid.

In addition, can the annoucement about cleaning up Mason River by the agency make the use of river increased? Even assuming that the residents seldom use the River, because they worried the quality of the water, a promise about cleaning up cannot make the river really clean at a short time. The environmental restore will take a relative long time, as we know. Moreover, the author did not tell us the detail of the cleaning plan. When does begin it, and how does the agency put it into practice? So the author's conclution about a increase of use of the water lacks credibility.

Last but not least, the author's suggestion is also doubtful. Even if the river can be cleaned up, it is not clear that why the council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the lands along the Mason River? Can this plan represent the residents' real will? It is entirely possible that a majority of residents want to keep these lands wild as before, so that they can get a real relax in the nature. The author did not show the oppinion of the residents, therefore the final suggestion may be not proper.

To sum up, in this argument, the evidence is not enough to support waht the author maintained. To strenghten, more information, such as a introduce of the city, a detailed plan about cleaning up the river and a poll about the improvement of lands, are necessary.