argument137 第二十八次作业

xmbjowlUID: 2182375

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 509          TIME:  00:36:32          DATE: 2006-7-4


In this editorial, the arguer asserts that based on the likely-increased recreational use of the Mason River, the Mason City council should increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To support the viewpoint, several facts are cited, such as the complaints about the water quality, seldom recreational use of the river, as well as the anounced plans which would improve the status in quo regarding the river. Unfortunately, all facts mentioned in the argument are not convincing as it stands and even undermine the conclusion.
First, the reported complaints is statistically unreliable. The amount of complaints regarding the water quality is not provided. Probably only a little portion of the overall individuals are not satisfactory with the river. Or the complaints emerged may just an excuse for explaining their discontent toward the Mason City.
Even assuming the complaints and discontent about the poor condition of the water do exist, the author cannot arbitrarily attribute the seldom recreational use of the river to the unsatisfactory water quality. There may exist other key reasons which determines the people's inclination. Perhaps there are other available recreational center specialized in water recreation, which is more suitable for individuals. Or perhaps the charges of recreational use of the river experience such significant surge that most common person cannot afford to it. Also, it is entirely possible that relevant environment organizations endeavor to protect the water quality, and convince people not to trespass the clean water and leave the river as its original state.  

Even if the causality between the use of the Mason River and the quality of it do exist, we cannot be assured that the announced plans aiming at improve the quality of the water would be put into practice. Maybe it just remains to be a plan forever. Again, even if relevant departments practice them, no evidence is provided that these plans and operation would be effective and efficient, as it sounds to be. Without the relevant information to convinse us in the above-mentioned respects, the assertion that the situation is about to change is open to doubt.

Even the improvement of the quality of water comes into being, and as a result the reational use of the Mason River is increased, no evidence is provided to substantiate the need to improving to the publicly owned lands along the river. There is no evidence that people who go to fishing, boating or swimming will also use the lands along the river. Maybe the the lands are perfect enough that spending money on improving it would be a waste of money.

In sum, the conclusion is unsubstantiated, for several logical fallacies. To strenthen the conclusion, more detailed information such as the concrete amount of the complaints, should be provided in order to justify the proposal. We should also be convinced that the anounced plans would indeed be operated effectively and efficiently. Beside, a careful investigatio of the true reason why people do not choose the Mason River as a recreational place should be further conducted.