argument137 V6站队 8.11

zehuaUID: 199246

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 arguer's conclusion is weak. The announced plans may not improve water condition of Mason River. In addition, even though people like water sports, this may not be suitable on this river.

First, the arguer draw a hasty conclusion that the water quality of Mason River is bad, based on a few complaints. However, we do not know if these complaints could represent the entire group of people willing to do water sports. Perhaps the number of complaints is so small that it is neglectable, or perhaps the complaints only represent a certain group of people who directly drink water from Mason River. In either event, the complaints could not prove that the group of people leading water sports avoid Mason River for its low quality of water, and even could not prove that the water quality of Mason River is low.

In addition, even if Mason River is not clean, it is unconvincing whether the announced plans by the responsible river agents would take effects at all. Since such agents are responsible for Mason River condition, they might already be attempting to clean the water for a long time since their foundation, but water today is still not clean. Therefore, their future plans might fail as well.

Furthermore, the arguer fails to provide reasons of the group of people who prefer water sports to avoid Mason River. Possibly, Mason River is clean, narrow and rapid, which is neither undesirable for swimming to be safe, nor wide enough for surfing. It is also likely that the water is not polluted at all, but with too many cargoboats on it, it is inconvenient to lead water sports. Without ruling out these possibilities, even if the water of Mason River is cleaned by local agents, it might still not attract people to do sports on it.

Finally, even if the river is polluted and relevant plans would take effects and attract people for recreation, we still wonder the necessity of increasing budget for improvement to the publicly owned lands along Mason River. Without providing the current conditions of such lands, it is entirely possible that these lands already satisfy public needs. In that case, budget to further improve them would only be a waste of money.

In sum, the arguer's conclusion is groundless as it stands. To better assess his conclusion, the arguer would have to prove that Mason River is not clean and local agents' plan could take effect. In addition, he should provide exact reasons why people do not do recreations on Mason River and also prove the necessity to improve lands along Mason River.

zehuaUID: 199246

顶