argument137 高频 讲一个river如何提高人们的游玩率

orange83UID: 2127694

137The 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 the argument, the arguer concludes that the Mason City (MC) council should increase the budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River (MR). To support this assertion, the arguer provides several reasons to show why people are not willing to entertain in the MR. Careful scrutiny of the argument, however, reveals several logical fallacies, which render it unconvincing.

In the first place, although surveys show that people in MC greatly enjoy water sports, it does not necessarily lead to the result that they will surely go to MR to recreate. It is possible that there are a large number of places alternative for the residents to play water sports and MR is no better or even worse than the others. It is also possible that the water sports the residents like are not provided by the MR, but by other rivers, therefore, the citizens would rather entertain in other places than in MR.

In the second place, the arguer cannot confidently come to the conclusion that the recreation use of the MR will increased if it will be cleared up. It is possible that there may be some other reasons that prevent residents to have fun there. For example, the residents may consider the fee of recreating on MR is too high for them to afford, while the entertaining programs provided are with low quality. Another possibility is that the location of MR is too remote for the residents to travel to. It may take people several hours to travel there by cars; consequently, they are unwilling to spend so much valuable time to go to MR.

Finally, even if the MR needs clearing up, it does not necessarily come to the assertion that the recreation use of the river will certainly increased. The clearing up of MR has nothing to do with its recreation use. This use may remain the same since the investors consider it to be sufficient to meet the residents’ needs. What is more, even if the recreation use of MR will be increased, there is no persuasive evidence illustrates that the MC council should uplift the budget of enhancing the publicly owned lands, given that the arguer fails to provide information concerning that the latter one has relationship with the former one. Without this evidence, I cannot accept the arguer’s suggestion.

To sum up, the argument is not as persuasive as it stands. To strengthen the conclusion, the arguer should provide more information concerning that the quality of the water in MR is the main reason that prevents people from recreation there, and that the publicly owned lands have some relationship with the recreation use of MR.

回拍请留链接哦！！:handshake