第一次作业

sweetbettyUID：2359460

In this argument, the editorial asserts that the recreational use of the Mason river will be increased with the cleaning up plan carrying out, therefore the editorial also recommends that the budget on the public land along the river should increases. To better support his assertion, the editorial cites that surveys indicate that the region’s residents rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation. Besides, the editorial also assumes that residents would avoid use the river for the bad quality of the water. However, I find the editorial flaws in several aspects.
To begin with, the editorial assumes that the bad quality of the water leads to the avoidance of the river for any kind of recreational activity. To support his view, The editorial cites that complaints about the quality of the river have existed.  However, the editorial ignores other factors which may lead to the matter: perhaps the river is too deep to hold any kind of recreational activity. It will pose threats to the lives of the participants. Or perhaps also the surveys tells us the residents are interested in the kind of activity. When it comes them to take part in the activity, they will concern more about the safety and the investment. So without better detailed considerations, the assumption of the editorial remains unfounded.
Secondly, even if it is the quality of the river results in the avoidance of the river for any kind of recreational activity, the editorial assumes that with the plan of cleaning the river carried out, the quality of the river will improve significantly. However, it is equally possible that difficulties to carry out the plan will put an obstacle; the first thing that should be done is to control the source of the pollution. Thus, the factories or other companies should be banned or introduce a procedure to deal with the sewage. In some degree, it will add to the cost of the factories which at last will make an effect on the economic of the city. Without considering these matters, the assumption that the editorial makes remains unconvincing.
Thirdly, even assuming carrying out the plan will improve the quality of the water as planed, still the argument is based on the unfounded assumption that recreational use of the river is likely to increase. The quality of the water is not the only factors that may determine the popularity of the recreational use of the river, some other factors should be considered as well. For example, it is equally possible that the price to enter the place is too high for the majority to afford, or that there already exists recreational activities on the basis of water, people would more like to come to this place.
In sum, as it stands, the argument is wholly unpersuasive. To better bolster it, the editorial must show that the lack of recreational use of the Mason River due to the bad quality of the water. The editorial must also show us that the plan of cleaning the river will be carried out as planed and it will make effect on the improvement of the water. To better access the point, the editorial should provide evidence that lead to the recreational use of the river is likely to increase actually.