ARGUMENT137 [victors小组] 第8次作业 by baiyu_2005

baiyu_2005UID: 2255194

Victors 小组 第八次作业 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 this argument, the arguer concludes that the City council should increase its budget in improving public land along the Mason River in order to meet the possible increasing of recreational use of the river. To support the recommendation, the arguer cites a fact that although survey show people rank water sports high, they seldom use the nearby Mason River for recreational activity.  Also, there were complaints about quality of water, and the agency responsible for river have announced plane to clean up river. However all these base on unsubstantial assumptions undermine the arguer’s assertion.

First of all, the recommendation base on those residents rarely goes to nearby Mason River, nevertheless the arguer supply no evidence to support this point. To the contrary, the survey that mention in the passage, just proper, illustrate that a lot of people actually usually view the Mason River high and take recreational activity there. Lack of the evidence that people seldom use the nearby Manson River the arguer could not persuade me to convince his suggestion.

Next, even if the public rarely go for recreational activity there is nothing could show it is because the poor river quality. Although it show there were some complaint about this problem, but nothing tells us this situation still bother the residents now and act as a crucial factor obstacles people from the region. Without the evidences for this it is really possible there are more areas that attract the people’s interest more, which also render the recommendation less convincing.

Last but not least, even if it is because the poor water quality that lessen the people go to the area, the arguer provide no information show that the future possible plan will change the situation  and draw back the people. Although it is likely as this, without direct evidences to show this, it is also possible that the plan will not act little changing on the river situation, or although the water condition improve significantly the people have already been used to not go there. All these possibility will further undermine the arguer’s assertion.

In sum, the recommendations that lack critical evidences make it less convincing. To better support his point, the arguer should provide that the resident seldom go to the river area now and it is because the poor water quality. And also it is better to show that the agency plan will act an important role in improving the river environment and draw back public interest.