【TRANSFORMER】_ARGU137_0809

灵感女孩UID: 2224424

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."

yesrushUID: 2443769

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: 498          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2009-8-9 17:22:23

By citing the information of Mason River, which is complained by some residents about the quality of water and therefore residents are not willing to play in the river and the annunciation by the agency responsible for rivers that they make a plan to clean up Mason River, the author concludes that recreational use of the river is likely to increase and consequently the budget should be increased to improve the publicly owned lands along this river. The argument seems to sound on the surface, however, the author fails to consider several factors to evaluate the situation.

To begin with, the author claims that the reducing number of residents going to river is attributable to the unclean condition of the river. It is true that some residents complaints about the quality of the water in the river, however, if we need to be better informed about the water quality, the response from other residents should be heard. In addition, the author ignores other factors rather than the water quality plays a major role in the increasing number of residents avoiding the river. Perhaps the TV cable is just set in the area, so the nearby residents tend to stay at home and watch TV. It is also possible that the residents may be inclined to hike in a new park that just opens up.

What's more, even though the fact that residents do not like to play in the river due to the water quality, the author unfairly believes that the agency, which is responsible for rivers, has the ability to clean up Mason River. Although this agency has some relevant experience in dealing with the water pollution, they can not ensure the water pollution in Mason River can be solved as soon as possible. Is it possible that the sudden financial problem leads to halt of the cleaning river preceding? Is the water quality good enough for residents to return after they clean up water? In the face of such limited evidence, I can not accept the conclusion that the agency is able to pure the water.

Additionally, even if the pollution problems can be solved by the agency and the residents come back to the river, the author unjustly assumes that they should raise the budget for the publicly owned lands along the river. The author ignore the possibility that the residents playing in the river, only concerns the water equality and the infrastructures in the river, rather than the publicly outside the river. The author also overlooks the possibility that other issues, such as unemployment problems, education and the transportation matters are much more urgent for government to invest capital in.

In conclusion, the argument suffers from several fallacies. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide us the detail information about the reason why residents avoid the river. To better access the argument, the author must present the special evidence that the agency is able to solve the pollution problems of the river.

shallwetalk1990UID: 2507431

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：484          用时：2:03:09          日期：2009-8-9

It stands reason that points in this argument should be logical, cause of its clear statement. Grounding a series of reasonable inference about the surveys of the residents' favorite form of recreation in Mason City, the pollution of Mason River and the improvement of this situation in the future, The author makes the conclusion like that Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. However, when we have a deep thought, we will find some logical confusion.

Firstly, considering the reliability of the conclusion's precondition in this argument, the author should calculate uncertain factors of it. Thought the surveys point out that the region's residents make water sports as their favorite form of recreation, the level of their taking part in these sports is still unknown.  Author also put the contend of some complaints as evidence, which seems questionable. The correlation of the pollution and the place of water sports looks inconspicuous, the people who complaints the quality of the water in the river may never want to do water sports in Mason River. They may be only some businessmen, what they care most may be the economy of Mason River. Most of residents may like and take part in this sport, however, the place of them to swim, fish, and boating maybe the settled place instead of Mason River. The natatorium is a good counterexample of it.

Secondly, in spite of these preconditions, the necessary of the measure is worth suspicious. The plans of the agency responsible for rivers in Mason City means nothing, plan in future predicate so many uncertain factors. The execution of these plan couldn't be guaranteed, residents hold the reason to doubt it. Even if the agency does what it plans to do, the pollution can't be the primary reason that residents no longer went to Mason River for water sports. The survey should be more precise, the irresponsible conclusion may cause a chain of mistakes.

Finally, the suggestion that Mason City council should take measure to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River seems cursory, only based on these evidences which unreasonable relation in them. Even if the recreational use of the river will increase, it's not the same with the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The need of the lands along the Mason River's improvement should be considered, no evidence point out that residents or other people company the condition of publicly owned lands.

Overall, the author did apply himself/herself into his/her work, while at the same time he was making lots of logical mistakes. He should hold more information about residents' favorite water sports place and the real reason why somebody complain the pollution of Mason River, then he can make his conclusion more reasonable based on other factors. His work should be accepted, however, his suggestion should no be accepted.