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: 544 TIME: 00:33:31 DATE: 2010/2/6 10:25:36
The speaker suggests the city council to increase budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the statement, he provides evidences which shows the willingness of the city residents of doing water sports and that the agency is about to clean the river for them to do the sports. Based on these claims s/he assumes a coming prosperity of recreations along the river. With close scrunity, I find the statement unconvincing in several ways.
First, the speaker fails to verify the willingess of its residents to do water sports. The size of the survey is not provided and the respondents may not be representatives of the region. Ranking water sports as a favorite form of recreation doe not mean it is the only choice the residents would choose to do in their leisure time. The residents may enjoy water sports by watching matches on television. If no evidence is given to prove their preference of doing the sports outdoor, we cannot be convinced a prosperity in water creation along the river.
Second, whether it is due to the pollution of the river which prevents the residents from choosing it as their sports venue remains to be a question. Given that the residents really do a lot of water exercises, they may have better places other than the river such as swimming pools and the seashores. The reason they show no favor in the river may accounts to the nature of the river which affects the security. For instance, the river may have a number of curves and turbulence. For that matter, the residents will not choose the river as the venue no matter how clean the water might be.
Third, there is great chance that the agent will not keep its promise to clean the river. The given evidence only shows they planned, rather than commenced to solve the pollution problem. There are chances that they find the business totally unprofitable and give up sticking to the plan. Without ensuring the plan will be actually carried out, the investment of the city council will be at great risk concerning gaining profits.
Furthermore, given that a lot of citizens come to the river to do the sports after it has been cleaned doesn't necessarily mean an increase in the use of publicly owned lands. If the Mason is a city of small size, people may choose to do the preparations in their own house and come to the spot only to play the sports rather than use the lands along the river. Thus, the cost the government spent could not be paid off in the foreseeable future. That is to say, the planned budget would turn out to be no profitable at all.
In conclusion, the Mason City council should do more researches before carrying out the investment. Further evidences that should be provided are: (1) the number of people who will really choose Manson River as the venue after it is cleaned (2) the detailed proposal of the agency to clean the river (3) how much will the people doing sports use the public lands along the river. If these evidence shows contradictory statistics or tendencies, I suggest the government giving up its plan in increasing the budget.