argument137

nancy_caoUID: 2111168

Argument137
In this argument, the speaker concludes that the Mason City council will need to increase its budge for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the conclusion, the speaker points out that Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity at present cause the complaints about the quality of the water in the river, even though surveys of the region’s residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. In addition, the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River thus the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the complaints about the quality of the water in the river and the fact that the residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity. Many other possible factors such as the environment, establishment, even the charge of the nearby Mason River have been excluded which may also lead to the lack of usage of the Mason River. Even if I concede that the residents prefer water sports rather than other sports, but maybe it is too expensive for everyone to take part in this kind of recreational activity. In short, since the argument has not ruled out all other possibilities that might serve to increase the number of the residents it is hard to take the conclusion seriously.

Another flaw in the speaker’s conclusion is that the argument treats a lack of proof that the quality of the river is still not clean enough currently. It is true that there have been complaints about it, but maybe after taking some step to clear up it, it is not the case nowadays. Thus the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization based on the past.

In addition, the arguer assumes that the region’s announcement would lead to the increase of the recreational use, yet the arguer has not provided any evidence to substantiate the assumption. In all likelihood, the residents have developed other favorite sports just before the assumption has come true. Therefore, we could believe the increase as the argument predicts.

To sum up, this argument is not convincing as it stands with the vague and incomplete evidence cited itself. To strengthen the conclusion and make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the quality of the water in the Mason river is the major factor which affect the number of the residents attend the recreational activity. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about the causal relationship between the announcement which plan to clean up the river and the increase of the recreational use. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.