Argument137 【challenge yourself小组】第四次作业

xomaeUID：2468629

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."


In the argument, the author recommended Mascon City council should  pay more budget for the river. To strengthen his claim,  the author points out that a agency will clean Mascon River which has been polluted. At first glance of this argument it seems somewhat convincing, but further reflections reveal that it is a poor one. In my opinion, the argument suffers from three logical flaws.

First, the author incorrect supposes that polluted river dues to residents keep away from it. In the argument, the author does not provide certain information to prove dirty river is the only cause of residents' absent. Perhaps, the reason people do not go there is not only because of the polluted river, but also the implements which are out of fashion. So without ruling this possible factor, the author can not assert people avoid the river because of the polluted river.

Secondly, It is hard for the author to convince us to believe the agency could clean the polluted river by only a announcement. We also do not know how serious the river polluted, may be it is too dirty to be improved. And the author does not tell us whether the institution has the ability to clean M river. lacking the crucial information to make us give up our doubt, the argument is unreliable.

Thirdly, Even if the river could be cleaned, we do not ensure whether the residents would go there. Great interesting in water sport is not a sufficient evidence to prove people would visit M River while it is cleaning. We see, perhaps M River have a long distance from M City, so we should consider whether residents are pleased going there although residents favorite in doing water sport. Or perhaps, There is another water park for residents to swim, fish, and boat, more valuable and more convenient. If these are the cases, the author should provide sufficient information to prove people would go there after the construction.

In sum, Based on the factors above, we don't think Mascon City council will increase their budget for the reconstruction of M River by the poor analysis. The author does not supply any evidence which reveals the connection between the construction and Mason City council. If the author want to make the argument more convincing, he should indagate more information about people's attitude to M River, in addition, he must ensure M River has the developmental value. After the argument conclude these factors it will be more effective to convince us.

[ 本帖最后由 xomae 于 2008-7-31 10:29 编辑 ]