Argument137 weixch,求求你了，拍我行不？

weixchUID: 2104033

argument 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."

前提，河水会干净
前提，河水流速等，可能该河本身就不适合水上运动。
前提，河水干净了河上娱乐会上升

The editorial recommends an increase of budget to improve the lands along the Mason River. To better support the viewpoint, the author shows us two pieces of evidence. One is a survey telling us the water sports regarded by the residents as favorite form of recreation; the other is an announcement of an agency to clean up the river. However, close scrutiny of the editorial might show us some flaws undermining the author's deduction.

First of all, the author's viewpoint is based on the anticipation of a clean Mason River. To substantiate it, an announcement of an agency is concerned in the material. Although the agency plans to clean up Mason River in the announcement, the detail of the program is not mentioned in the newspaper yet. As we have no idea of the scheme and the efficiency of the agency, it is hard to assure the feasibility of the project. Let alone to promise the schedule and the vague target of the plan, since the target is completely omitted in the editorial at all.

Secondly, even if agency succeeds in cleaning up the river, the feasibility of water sports in this river is still uncertain. According to our common sense, to practice water sports in a river require the speed and temperature of the current in a special range. Some water sports such as swimming and boating is dangerous to do in overfall or valley near waterfall; in other cases, fishing is also nearly impossible in rivers of high temperature near active volcanoes. Since the feasibility of water sports is not investigated or analyzed in this editorial, it may be a little bit arbitrary to draw a conclusion basing on the hypothesis that the river is fit for water sports.

Finally, the editorial shows us a survey indicating the favorite of water sports among residents. Unfortunately, the favorite does not mean the future flourish of water sports in Mason River. Without more information to clarify the relationship between the survey and the anticipated flourish of water sports in Mason River, the editorial fails to rule out the possibility that the residents could be used to do water sports in other river near the Mason City and not willing to swimming or boating in Mason River even if it will be cleaned up. Without further information implying the future flourish of water sports in Mason River, the intent of residents in Mason City is still in question.

In sum, the argument of the author is unconvincing as it stands. To make the viewpoint more authentic, the detail of plan to clean up river is necessary to open, and we also want to be informed the condition of Mason River in order to assess the feasibility of water sports. Moreover, to better support the conclusion, it is author's duty to show us more evidence to link the intent of residents with the future flourish of these sports in Mason River.