argument137

蔓草菊UID: 2195399

Argument137
1 First of all, the arguer alludes that the phenomenon that MC residents seldom use the nearby MR for any kind of recreational activity such as swimming, fishing, and boating is due to the bad quality of the water in the river.
2 Secondly, whether the announced plans to clean up MR will be effective? Are the plans really constructive and feasible? And how is the agency’s efficiency? All the questions cannot be found in this argument.
3 Thirdly, even if the recreational use of the river will increase after enacting the plans, why will the MC council need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MR.
In this argument, the arguer claims that Mason City (MC) council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River (MR), because recreational use of the river is likely to increase. However, this argument suffers a series of poor assumptions which render it wholly unpersuasive as it stands.
First of all, the arguer alludes that the phenomenon that MC residents seldom use the nearby MR for any kind of recreational activity such as swimming, fishing, and boating is due to the bad quality of the water in the river. However, the arguer provides no evidence that this is the case. The arguer may overlook other possible factors. Perhaps the water temperature of the river is too low even bellow zero or maybe the security service of the river is bad and no body want to go there for recreation. Without ruling out those possibilities the arguer cannot convince us that only improving the quality of the water in MR will help increase the recreational use of the river.
Secondly, whether the announced plans to clean up MR will be effective? Are the plans really constructive and feasible? And how is the agency’s efficiency? All the questions cannot be found in this argument. So the announced plans may not help solve the quality problems of the water in MR, let alone increase the recreational use of the river.
Thirdly, even if the recreational use of the river will increase after enacting the plans, why will the MC council need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the MR. The author offers no evidence that there is a relationship between the increase of the recreational use of the river and conditions of the publicly owned lands along the MR and the evidence that the publicly owned lands need improvements is not provided either. However, it is likely that the conditions of the publicly owned lands along the MR have been wonderful. If this is the case, money allocating in the improvement of the lands will just be wasted.
All in all, this argument is not credible and the evidence cited in it lends little support to what the author want to maintain. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer would have to provide more evidence that the fact that people in MC seldom use the nearby MR for recreation is due to the bad quality of the water in MR and the announced plans by agency of the region will help clean up the MR efficiently. To assess the argument more fairly, we need more information about the current conditions of the publicly owned lands along the MR.