▶ Your Answer :The author of the proposal claims that the
city government should devote more of this year’s budget in cleaning up the
Mason River in order to increase its usage in recreational activities. However,
this argument overflows with flaws and assumptions and lacks of evidence to
fully support the argument. First of all, the scope and validity of the
survey is open to doubt. The respondent of the survey is not clearly stated so
it is unclear that the respondents could represent the whole residents of the
Mason City. The respondents could have been biased or could have been a small
minority. In addition, we do not know if the survey was only asking about favorite
recreational activities. The survey could have been asking about a whole
different topic and lightly add one or two questions asking if the residents
like water sports for recreational activities. The survey needs to clear the ambiguity
of the scope and validity to use it as a supporting evidence.
Next, the author implies that there have
been complaints about the quality of the river for years. However, it is not
clearly stated how many years the complaints have been ongoing. If it had been
continuing for 5 years or more, then it would definitely be a more serious
problem compared to if it had been continuing for 2 years. Also, the author
commits a fallacy of oversimplification. The number of complaints is also not
clearly stated. There could have been only two to three complaints once a year,
or only one or two residents could have been making numerous complaints every
year. For the author to use this reason to support the claim, the number of
years and the scope and validity of the complaints should be clearly stated.
Lastly, the author’s assumption that the
lack of the river’s usage is due to low quality of the river’s water and smell
relies on unproven causal relationship. The lack of the river’s usage could
simply be because the residents enjoy water sports in a different area such as
outside of the city. Furthermore, the Mason River may not be qualified to be
used as a recreational facility for many other reasons such as the size of the
river, or the nearby environment and so on. The author needs more supporting
evidence to clarify the unproven cause of the river’s lack of usage.
In conclusion, summing up the various
angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities,
the argument does not justify the increase of the budget. Even though the
proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant
to any action. |