argument 137 欢迎砖头！！

lignumvitaeUID: 207532

------题目------
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.'
------正文------
From this excerpt, the arguer indicates that the changing conditions of the Mason River in a period in Mason city, and concludes that the residents, who did not use Mason river for recreational activity before, becoming likely to change their mind. Suggestions are also given at the end of the argument. But close scrutiny reveals that several critical logical flaws discussed below.

First of all, the surveys are not very reliable as it stands. We do not know the methodology of the surveys, and cannot be sure that the surveys executed in a reasonable way. Who organized the survey, the government or social groups? What method did the researchers use? Did the residents report the real thoughts?Without knowing detail information of the survey, we could not believe any conclusion drawing from the survey and the suggestion from the arguer.

Secondly, even if the survey is believable, that the region's resident s consistently rank water sports does not surely mean that they would like to choose Mason river to have water sports as a favorite form of recreation. There may be many other great places for them to enjoy water sports and other activities. The arguer does not explain these potential possibilities in order to strength the argument. Therefore, the following conclusion may not make any sense at all.

In addition, that the agency responsible for rivers announced plans to clean up Mason river does not mean the river' condition will be improved in the future. Since whether the plan is feasible and reasonable is not sure, and the risks in the executing process are not informed. So actually, the agency could not guarantee that the plan will be executed successfully and achieve the goals that they predict.

Moreover, even if the conclusion that the recreational use of river is going to increase is true, we could not believe that increasing the budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River is reasonable and necessary. There is no evidence to convince us that the problems of the river came from the publicly owned lands. That is to say the suggestion is valid if the assumption is a mistake.

To sum up, the argument is not convincing at all as it stands. In order to bolster it, the arguer should give enough evidence about the survey, the plans, and the surrounding situation of the river, and rule out other possibilities that residents may go for water sports and recreational activities.

lignumvitaeUID: 207532

有没有砖啊？