argument137

nancy_caoUID: 2111168

A1-137
This editorial concludes that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River. To support this conclusion the editorial infers that the reason that residents avoid the river lives in that it is not clean enough. Therefore, since the agency responsible for rivers in that region has decided to clean up Mason River, recreational use of the river is likely to increase. Even though this argument has some possibilities, it is problematic for several reasons.
To begin with, the editorial observes two facts, one is the seldom use of nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity and the other is the surveys of the region’s residents that suggest water sports as a favorite form of recreation, then concludes that the former is caused by the bad quality of water. However, the editorial provides no detailed information about surveys above-mentioned, such as quantity of the sample, concrete data of the result, and the representation of respondents. Thereby, this conclusion is of great skepticism. For example, it is entirely possible that Mason City residents are now absorbed in other entertainments including watching TV, playing card and reading. Even though water sports is their favorite form of recreation, perhaps they are now busy with making a living because of the recession of economy and hardly have any time to use Mason River for fun. Without identifying the reliability of the surveys and ruling out all other factors, it is unfair to conclude that water quality is responsible for the little use.
Next, the editorial commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. The editorial infers that complaints which maybe reflect the past quality of the water in the river are effective consistently. Perhaps, the agency has well solved the problem at receiving complaints, otherwise it will not cease. In addition, the establishments and surroundings as a whole bear great deal with the frequency of using. If the former are all out of date, and the latter is not comfortable enough, it is understandable that residents come rarely. While the case is just opposite, too expensive charges of water sport items may also result in residents’ resistances. Without taking into account these possibilities, the editorial cannot convince me of its conclusion.
Finally, even assuming water quality is the main reason, there is no evidence to confirm that recreational use is likely to increase after cleaning up Mason River. Since out-door exercise depends on weather condition to the most extent, it is entirely possible that residents do in-door exercise instead because of present terrible weather.
In conclusion, the facts in this excerpt do not permit any reliable inference about the increasing of recreational use. To strengthen the argument, the editorial’s author must rule out all other possible factors contributing to the low use rate. In order to evaluate the argument, I would also need information about the surveys of residents to clarify their true attitudes.