water sports

The author of the argument recommended the city government to invest more money to install riverside recreational facilities, pointing out that this major operation would appeal considerable citizens to use these facilities and thus reach higher satisfaction level. In surpporting his claim, the author took as proof a survey indicating water sports are residents’ favorite activities and complaints from residents about the quality of the river. However, these do not constitute a valid surpport as there are flaws in the author’s claims.

The first obvious flaw in the argument is that the survey which says Mason City residents are most fond of water sports is not a strong proof, as we do not know who made this survey or how many people and what kind of people this survey investigated. For instance, this survey could have asked people who lived near the river, which largely increased the chance for their likeness towards water sports. And also, it is also possible that this survey only inquired five citizens, which means the result is not very persuasive. Consequently, due to the ambiguousness of the survey, we cannot come to the conclusion that water sports are the Mason City residents’ favorite activities.

Even if the survey is valid, we still cannot say for sure that once the government devotes more money for the maintainence and clearance of riverside recreation facilities, the use of these facilities would go up. In the argument, the author points out that there have been complaints from residents about the odor the river produces, which causes bad influence for the usage of the riverside facilities, and once the govenment accomplishes cleaning up the river, the usage would definately increase. Nevertheless, the little usage of the facilities might has another reason such as the location of the river is thousands of miles away from the central city and most people do not want to bother travelling this far a distance to play with the recreational facilities. And even if it is because of this odor, the clearing process might fail due to the natrual condition of the river. Chances are that the river natrually produces this kind of smell, maybe due to the glut sulfide in the river bank, so no matter how hard the government tries to clear the river, it might still not work.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that increasing investment in the riverside recreational facilities and clearing operations would attract more and more residents to use the riverside facilities, since the evidence cited does not lend strong underpin to what the author maintains. To make the argument more convincing, the author would have to provide more information with regard to the details of the survey and complaints, and the natural conditions of the river.

-------------------------------------------------

While it may be true that the city government should devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on the river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a clean river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.

Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city residents’ preference of water sports. It is not clear, though, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectrical dam built, which may have swayed the residents toward water sports. The sample might not have been representative of city residents, asking only those who live upon the river. The survey may have been ten pages long, with only 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid and reliable, it cannot be used to effectively back the author’s argument.

Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a pollluted river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the lack of river use and the river’s current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous compliants from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of citizens why they do not currently use the river.

Building upon the assumptions tha t residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river, the author suggests thet a river clean-up would result in increased river usage. If the river’s water quality and aroma is acused by problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, of the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollutions of nearby factories, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulfur due to the geography of the area. This is not something that could be remedied by a clean-up operation. Consequently, a river clean-up may have no impact upon the river usage. Regradless of wether the water’a quality could be improved or not, the author does not show a connection between the river usage and the water quality.

A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city’s property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who came to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for tresidents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving the riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s argument is not likely significantly persuade the city government to allocate increased funding.