argument137 [中华龙第十次作业,谢谢大家用力拍]

Ammmy2000UID: 2265680

Argument 137 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."

==================================================================
1.the validity of the survey is dubious.
2.Even though the survey is credible, the author fails to provide any evidence to support his assertion that   people are prone to enjoy recreation, if clean, in the river.
3. whether the council need to increase its budget for improvements to the lands nearby river or not is a      question.
================================================================

In this editorial, the author asserts that the Mason City (MC) council should increase its fund for improvement to the publicly owned lands nearby the river. To support his assertion, he cites that a survey indicates water sports are favorite forms of recreation among residents, and the main reasons for the seldom use of the river are due to the quality of the water in Mason River. He also points out the increasing usage of the river since the agency responsible for rivers plans to clean it up. Clear scrutiny of each of the factors, however, reveals that none of them lends credible support to the assertion.

To begin with, the validity of the survey of the district's citizens is dubious. Since the arguer fails to supply the detailed and specific information about the survey, we have no idea about the accuracy and object of it. Absent evidence, it is entire possible that the scope of the study is limited, which hardly makes a generalization; or the responders are in relevant works towards water sports, which could not correctly reflect the preference of all the residents; or other kinds of sports, such as running, football and so forth are more popular than water sports without comparing with them. Not until the author could rule out the possible reasons, could we believe the accuracy of the survey.

Moreover, even though the study is credible, the arguer's claim that people are prone to enjoy recreation, if clean, in the Mason River is ungrounded. Absent evidence to substantiate his idea, perhaps the current of the water is too rapid, perhaps the water is too deep, perhaps the river is full of sharks, all of which may prevent individuals from enjoying water sports in the river. In sum, we could barely make the conclusion of the increasing usage of the river in line with the betterment of the water quality.

In addition, whether the MC council needs to increase its funding for improvement to the public lands near the river is a question. Firstly, although the agency plans to clean up MR, there is no evidence to prove the quality of the water will be obviously improved in the near future. It is just as likely that the efforts of several generations are involved into the improvement and the effect of it is rarely seen in a short-term. Secondly, we are never informed about the contemporary conditions about the public lands near the river, maybe the conditions are so good and there is no need to investing a large amount of money on it.

To sum up, the recommendation is not persuasive as it stands. To better bolster his idea, the author should provide more information about the survey and MR in detail. To better assess the proposal, we should also be informed about the current situation of publicly owned lands and the clean-up plan of the river.