Argument137 永不言弃第十五次作业 by stgzhao 7#

stgzhaoUID: 2583165

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 533          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009-2-20 8:58:36

The argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By taking residents' complaints about the quality of the Maso River and the fact that there will be plans to clean up Mason River into consideration, the argument for the recreational use of the river is likely to increase and the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River seems logical enough.
However, the argument is based on a assumption that it is the displeasure of the quality of the water in the river that makes residents in Mason River seldom use Mason River for recreational activity and hence fails to take other alternatives into consideration. Such alternatives may include the distance between the Mason River and the Mason City and the favorite sports of the residents in the whole Mason City. The word "nearby" is not very exact to portray the distance of the river, perhaps most residents living in the city consider the distance to be so far that they prefer to go to indoor aquatic gyms for recreation or  even choose to some land sports like golf, tennis, and running. In addition, it is possible that only the residents near the river rank water sports as a favorite form of recreation and other residents do not like it at all. Or maybe the favorite sports of the residents is not the most-frequent-doing sports of them, which means it it possible that the residents are so busy that they have little time for recreation.
The announcement of the plans which aims to clean up Mason River seems to be a good news for the residents who likes water sports and complaints about the quality of the river, but it is different from announcing a plan and carrying out a plan. The responsible agency may have little authority to force those who pollute the river to stop doing so. And, as we all know, the quality of water in a river has much to do with the activities of residents living at the upper reaches of the river, whether the upper reaches' residents are going to clean up the river does make a difference.
Even if the quality of the Mason River is going to be better, perhaps there are still other concerns about the river that prevent the residents use the river for recreational activities such as safety concerns. Is the flow of the river being too rapid of is it too deep to be safe enough for recreation? If so, it is reasonable that residents thinks little about the river for recreational use. After all, life is much more important than entertainment.
There is some other suspects, like whether the council need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River, that I will not discuss in detail. Overall, the conclusion that after cleaning up the Mason River residents is likely to increase their use of the river for recreation. However, there is still much that the argument should provide in order to be better evaluated. Before that, it should remain uncertain that if the council should increase its budget for the Mason River.