In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing throughthe city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park departmentdevotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For yearsthere have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river’s waterand the river’s smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to cleanup Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. Thecity government should for that reason devote more money in this year’s budget toriverside recreational facilities.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions ofthe argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptionsand what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money toriverside recreational facilities, this author’s argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residentswould want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, andthus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident’s love of watersports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, thesurvey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports orwould like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents towardriver sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, askingonly those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long,with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey isfully representative, valid, and reliable, it cannot be used to effectively back theauthor’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 andsmelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concreteconnection between the resident’s lack of river use and the river’s current state is noteffectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there havebeen numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or twoindividuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, theauthor would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range ofresidents why they do not currently use the river.
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river’s water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean-up will resultin increased river usage. If the river’s water quality and smell result from problemswhich can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water qualityand aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could beremedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in thewater or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of
water whichemit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not somethinglikely to be affected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river cleanup may have no impactupon river usage. Regardless of whether the river’s quality is able to be improved ornot, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and riverusage.
A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city’s property values, leads to increasedtourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a betteroverall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide toinvest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author’s argument isnot likely significantly persuading the city government to allocate increased funding.