▶ Your Answer :
Surely it may be true that Mason City government should devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities. But this author's argument seems like it could not make a cogent case for using more money to ameliorate Mason riverside recreational facilities. In addition, the author's proposal has rife with holes and hasty assumptions that not strong enough to lead to an increased budget.
First of all, to contemplate the validity of the survey should be preceded. The author begins his/her statement with the point that Mason City residents prefer water sports, also that point becomes a basic foundation of his/her argument. However, the survey is not clear in view of validity and scope. For example, the survey could have asked the preference of only between water sports and generally unpreferred pursuits, which may have swayed residents toward water sports. And also, it is unwarranted whether the sample of the survey can be representative of all Mason City residents, that is to say, we just do not know how many residents have been surveyed. Only insofar as the surveys involve clearness, it can be used to effectively support the author's argument.
Secondly, the author alludes to that, quite naturally, the cleaning up Mason River can improve or solve the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. However, the problem of the river's bad water quality and stench may not be a simple one, although it seems like ostensibly easy to solve. For example, the bad quality of the water and smell may be derived from the rock which exists at the bottom of the river and some chemical element contained by the river's water, not just from the peripheral contaminant. If Mason river is in such a situation, simple cleaning up can hardly assure improvement of water quality and smell. Therefore, the author ought to suggest a detailed way of amelioration to strengthen his/her argument.
Thirdly, the author attempts to bridge cleaning up Mason River to increment of use of the river for water sports directly. And also this attempt is based on that Mason City residents tend to, although they prefer water sports, steer themselves away from water sports in Mason River because water quality and smell are bad. However, this direct bridge that cleaning up Mason River can lead to an increment of use of the river for water sports appears dubious. Albeit the cleaning up can improve water quality and smell andMason River residents surely prefer water sports, the residents may not want to do water sports in MasonRiver. For example, the flow of the water may be too fast to swim and do boating, or the river does not contain enough fishes for fishing. So the author should display the cogent connection that the improvement of Mason River's water environment leads to use of the river for water sports.
Examining his/her argument with considering the validity of assumptions, the argument is not likely significantly convince, although the purpose of the author's proposal seems good, the Mason City government to devote more budget to riverside recreational facilities. |