Argument113 【天下无G askme习作】第7次作业

askmeUID: 2264776

题目：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."
字数：455          用时：0:24:11          日期：2007-2-9

Giving some facts and analysis, the argument that the Mason City council needs to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River seems logical. However, a careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if the river turns clean eventually, it does not follow that the growing number of residents would like to play near the river. Perhaps, the bad impression of the river in the past has taken root in residents' minds. If so, people would shy from the river, once polluted, at any rate. Therefore, the conclusion is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.

In addition, the arguer depends on the assumption that if residents come to the river, then they are sure to play on the publicly owned lands. However, this is not the case, nor does the arguer provide any evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. It is highly possible that people would like to fish or boat in the river, because there are lots of fish in the river or the view on the river is quite attractive. If so, the improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River do little with residents playing on the river. In short, lacking such evidence, the conclusion is premature at best.

Moreover, the arguer simply equates the increase in budget with the improvements to the publicly owned lands. If these lands are adequately clean and beautiful, it would waste time and money to continue improving them. There is also a chance that the publicly owned lands are extremely polluted along with the river. If so, the effect would be highly doubtable. In a word, in either event, the arguer cannot confidently draw the conclusion.

Finally, the arguer assumes that no other means of improving the publicly owned lands are available. Nonetheless, the arguer furnishes no evidence to substantiate this significant assumption. It is equally likely that other means would better improve the lands. For example, there are lots of institutes for protecting environment. The council might encourage such institutes and all residents to protect our environment and improve the owned lands on their own. If so, not only the lands could be improved, but also a large number of money could be saved. Without ruling out these and other possible alternatives, the arguer’s conclusion is highly unconvincing.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited here lends no strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should provide more evidence concerning the publicly owned lands. To better evaluate this argument, we need more information regarding the propensity of residents.