argument137 再接再厉发阿狗

quickbreezeUID: 195262

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."
Time: 41:22  words: 531

In this argument, the arguer reaches a seemingly reasonable suggestion that the budget for improvements to the publicly owned land along the Mason River should be increased. To support his argument, the arguer cites the results of a survey and some predictions, which makes the argument somewhat convincing at the first glance. However, in-depth scrutiny has revealed several defects which undermine the validity of this argument.

First of all, the survey cited by the arguer about people’s favorite form of recreation fails to prove its authenticity and use. We are no informed about the conductor and date; and an out of date survey without authority can provide no helpful information for our judgments. Also, the arguer makes mistakes about the concept of "water sports" and "river recreation" since river is only one form of water body. It is quite possible that although people do favor swimming, fishing and boating, they prefer artificial and natural pools to rivers. Thus, the results of the survey lend little credit to verify the Mason River's tiny possibility of gaining popularity.

Moreover, the arguer wrong draws cause-and-effect relationship between two matters which may actually have no connection. Admittedly, there might be relationship between people's complaints about the water quality and their avoidance of the river. But to be a trustworthy editorial, the argument is lacking adequate evidence and logical reasoning to prove that. Perhaps the former is neither sufficient evidence nor necessary condition for the latter, for many other elements which would influence people's preference should be taken into consideration. It is as likely that the Mason River is not welcomed because of its formidable distance to the urban region and thus most of the residents. And maybe it is the dangerous eddies and rapids in the river that most repel residents, instead of the water quality. Before evaluating all these possibilities, the arguer cannot be to hasty to make a presumptuous conclusion that water quality is the major and even sole even for the Mason River's current situation.

Additionally, the arguer mentions the agency's plans as support for his prediction but fails to assure that the plans are feasible and will take effect soon. The arguer incorrectly uses something which now exists in imagination and expectation as his base for argument. Yet it should be pointed out that such evidence is so ungrounded that it undermines the argument. What is the credit and work efficiency of the agency responsible for the Mason River? The arguer mentions nothing about this point. So it may justifiable for me to question the announcement since many politicians hardly fulfill their promises. Therefore, even if it is the water quality that really affects people's attitude as the arguer says, the situation will get no improvement if the agency fails or only finishes this project a great many years later.  

In sum, this argument is weak and even misleading because of these deficiencies discussed above. To better evaluate this argument, the arguer needs to do comprehensive study and clarify the real cause of the river's current unpopularity. And more evidence should be presented if the arguer is going to persuade me that recreational use Mason River is in deed to enhance.