argument137 [jet小组] 第十一次作业

ilabcUID: 2298724

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."

The argument seems reasonable at first glance. By pointing out resident's flavor to water sports and complaints about the water quality, the idea that heavy pollution keep residents from water sports seem logic. Also the author mentioned the plan to clean up Mason River, which indicates that the river will become clean in the near future.

However, the author fails to investigate the potential population of those who would like to have water sport in Mason River. The survey shows people's preference to the water sport. But they do need to go to Mason River for such activity. Generally speaking, swimming in a swimming pool is more safe than in the river, since the swimming pools have the guards save people's life and the water has been cleared. People would more likely to go to swimming pool and to Mason Rivers. The survey would be more informative if it classifies the respondents' hobbies. Because those who like fishing and boating is the potential amateurs who would have water sports on Mason River.

Another problem in the argument is that the author believes that people avoid sports activity in Mason River is due to its pollution. However, it may not be the case. Possibly, those who complain about the water quality are not sports amateurs. But actually sports amateurs do not go to Mason River for other reasons. For example maybe they suffer a fast life pace in Mason City. Since they are heavy work load, they do not have enough spare time to exercise. Or Maybe, the facility of water sports is very expensive in Mason City. Ordinary residents cannot afford such high cost.  

Also, the author's conclusion is based on the agency's plan to clean up Mason River. But before the government invest on the public facilities for water sports. They should first know more details about the plan. For example, how long would the clean up project last? If the project needs a long time, then the government would put its money to other thing which is more urgent rather than improve the public land along the rive. And the author should know the goal of the project, or, in other words, the water quality after the project. Is it qualified to take water sports? Or, more concretely, which kind of water sport can it take, since fishing, swimming and boating obviously have different requirement to the water quality.

In sum, the author overlook many other factors that would also account for  the conclusion. To solidify the argument, the author need to find the exact cause of the few sports in Mason River. Also, more investigation to the clean plan is necessary before the government investment. Before such work to be done, the author's conclusion remains dubious.