Argument137 Myth小组第五次作业 airbots

airbotsUID: 2225434

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: 508          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-10-30

提纲：
1 少数人抱怨并不意味着水脏
2 即使水脏，人们不用河流娱乐也不一定是因为水脏
3 agency提出地计划是否具有可行性，没有时间表
4 即使所有假设正确，委员会也不一定必须出钱来修两岸的公共设施。

In this editorial the wirter recommends that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To prop this recommendation the writer claims that the quality of the water in Mason Riveer will be better, and the residents' recreational use the river is likely to increase, just because the agency responsible for the rivers in the Mason has announced plans to clean up Mason River. However, this argument contains a series of logical flaws, and is therefore not forceful as it stands.

A threshold assumption of this editorial involves that the writer fails to persuade us that the water of Mason River is not clean only by some people's complaints. It is entirely possible that those people who give these complaints  are extremely to complain every thing they meet. without supplying scientific evidence of analyzing of the Mason River's water, the writer can not conclude that the water quality of Mason River is not suitable for people's entertainment.

Even assuming that  the Mason River is not clean, that the writer fails to exclude other  possible factors for people who do not want to use the river to have entertainment. It is completely possible that there are some deadly fishes in the river which will attack the swimer or fishman, such as corocdile, and so forth. Or, perhaps the river is too deep to suitable for swimming, but not enough for boating. Without ruling out these or other possible factors, the arguer can not make a convictive conclusion that people does not like to do water sports in Mason River just because the water quality.

Thirdly, the writer supplies no evidence that the plan proposed by the agnecy responsible for the rivers will be implementd. It is entirely possible that the agnecy propose this plan is just to gain the attention of the people in the city, Or, the plan to clean up Mason River is has no feasibility to implement, and the schedule of the plan. For lacking the information about these factors, it is not convincing that the water quality of Mason River will be improved just by the plan.

Last but not least, Even assuming that forgoing assumptions are ture, there is no evidence indicates that the council shoud increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands, the writer fails to furnish original conditons about the lands, It is equally possible that the lands conditions are not bad, and need no improvement. In the absence of the information about the original conditions about the publicly owned lands, there is no necessary to increase the budget for the lands.

All in all, this arugment is not persuasive, to buttress it the writer should supply necessary analysis about the water quality in Mason River, and the reasons why people do not like to use the River for recreational activities, and the feasibility of the plan proposed by the agency, We also should know the condition of the publicly owned lands along the Mason River.