argument137 大家帮忙看看

宇文化天UID: 2236904

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: 480          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-28

In this argument, the arguer recommends that the Mason City council will need to increase the budget to improve the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To justify his idea, the arguer cite the evidence that the agency responsible for rivers in the region has announced plans to clean up Mason River, so the recreational user of the river is likely to increase. It sounds reasonable at first sight, a careful examination would show how groundless the conclusion is.

First of all, the arguer is based on the unwarranted assumption that the residents don't want to go to the river because they think the water is not clean enough. The arguer only tells us there have been complaints about the quality of water in the river. This situation happens in many region where there is a river. It is possible that the quality of the water is not the main reason, many reasons make people don't want to go to the river for recreational use. For example, the speed of the water in too fast, the temperature of the water is too low, all of these make the river not fit for recreational activity. The arguer ignores to tell us any other condition of the river.

Second, the arguer fail to establish the relationship that if the water of the river become clean the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. The arguer cites the result of the survey that the resident of the region like water sports. There is possibility that the people in the city have other place to enjoy water sport, for instance, they can swim in the swimming pool, and maybe there is a lake or another river near the city. The arguer does not tell us anything about these, so even the water become clean, maybe the number of residents go the Mason River for water sports would not increase.

Last but not the least, even if the arguer could substantiate the assumptions mentioned above, the arguer does not cite any evidence that the Mason City need to increase its budget for the improvement of the publicly owned lands along the river. The arguer tell us little about the lands along the river. We can have a possible imagination that the public lands along the river is good enough, or the residents care little about the lands, so we need not to increase the budget.

To conclude, this argument is not convinced as it stands. Before we accept the idea, the arguer should show more facts that it is that the quality of water make residents don't want to go to the river for water sports, and if the water become clean, the use of the river will increase. In addition, the arguer should cite more evidence that it is necessary to increase budget for the improvement of the public owned lands.