argument137 【永不言弃互改小组】第十五次作业 by 9号

cameo0320UID: 2599448

137.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."

当前，Mason市很少利用附近的Mason河来进行娱乐活动，尽管对该地区居的几次调查一直指出他们把水上运动（游泳、垂钓和划船）作为他们最喜欢的娱乐形式。由于曾经存在对于这条河水质的投诉，居一定是因为他们认为河水不够干净才不在这里活动。但这种情况就会改变了：我们地区负责河流管理的部门公布了澄清Mason河的计划。因此，河流的娱乐用途很可能将会增加，因而Mason市的市委有必要增加用于改Mason河沿岸公共土地的预算。

1、
只说M很少在河里进行娱乐活动，居民以前是否在这条河进行娱乐活动？没有信息
2、
对于河水水质的投诉是不是因为在河里进行娱乐活动引起的？是不是河水水质是影响居民在河里进行娱乐活动的决定因素？还有其他原因……
3、
即使是因为河水水质影响的，河流管理部门的计划一定会产生效果吗？河流的娱乐用途就会增加吗？也许M河主要用途是工业用水……
4、
即使娱乐用途增加，市委是否就应该增加预算？也许还有更重要的事情要做，也许市委资金不足。

















The author suggests that the council of M should increase its budget for the lands along the M river because the river will be used for recreational primarily. The argument seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion, however, the author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate his situation and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

First of all, the author shows that though interested in water sports, M residents seldom use the nearby M river for recreational activity. And the author infers that it must due to the complaints about the quality of the water in the river. In fact, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between the two matters. On one hand, the author provides insufficient evidence to illustrate that M residents are prefer to have recreational activities before the complaints happen. Perhaps, the residents are never swimming, fishing, and boating in the river. On the other hand, the author also overlooks other alternatives reasons why the residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity except the quality of the water. It is entirely possible that the river is not suitable for recreational activity for the harsh water conditions of it or the topography around the river make it dangerous to swimming or fishing which has no relationship with quality of the water.

Secondly, even assuming quality of the water will cause the residents leave the river and decline their activities in the river, it is nevertheless to assess the author’s broader contention that the plan to clean up M river is must be effective , and the recreational use of the river is likely to increase. The author fails to provide compelling evidence and more detail information about the plan. Just announced plans does mean the program will become practice, besides, the efficiency and the investment of the plan also should be take into consideration. Again, is the plan to clean up M river in order to attract more residents to swimming, boating or fishing? It is possible that the water of the river is mainly used to provide industries along it and though the quality of it improvement, it still don’t fit to have recreational activities.

Furthermore, even if the plan will improve the quality of the water and recreational use of the river is likely to increase, this single reason is insufficient to draw the conclusion that the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. Perhaps M city council can’t afford to the investment or there still some more immediate problems should be solve, thus, before conclusion about whether to increase its budget for the improvement to the publicly lands a more understanding of the benefits are needed.

In conclusion, the author’s suggests that the council of M should increase its budget for the lands along the M river is unconvincing. To bolster it the author must provide more information about the causal relationship between the quality of the water and the willness of the residents to do recreation sports in it. To better assess the argument I would need to know whether the plan will be started immediately and I would also need detailed the financial condition of the M city council.