argument第16篇求批改

proheart

In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
调查显示m市的老百姓把水上运动（游泳，划船及垂钓）作为最受欢迎的娱乐活动。贯穿m市的M河很少被用于水上运动，然而城市公园部门很少投入资金去维护沿河的活动设施。这么多年居民们一直投诉河水的质量及味道。为了回应这一投诉，当局最近宣布了清理M河的计划，因此M河的水上活动使用将会增加。所以市政府应该增加对河岸活动设施的资金投入。

The author predicts that theuse of the river for water sports will increase and suggests that the city governmentshould spend more money to riverside recreational facilities. It is easy toexplain why citizens want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holesand assumptions, and therefore, not strong enough to devote more funding.

The argument assumes that the surveys about MasonCity are valid and real. Nonetheless, it is not clear that whether the citizensparticipated in the surveys can represent common resident in the city, they maybe only the people who live upon the river. Besides, how can the authorguarantee the scientificity of the surveys? For example, the survey could haveasked the inhabitants if they prefer using the river for water sports or wouldlike to see hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents towardriver sports. Only under the condition that the survey is fully representative,valid, and reliable, it can effectively support the author's argument.

Similarly, the argument's conclusion depends on theassumption that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, andfishing just because of the pollution and smell of the river's water, despitewater sports are the activities they enjoy. We do not know whether the largeamounts of complaints are made by a wide range of people or by only severalindividuals who proposed so many times. If the fact is the latter, then thosecomplaints can not represent the most people in the city. Furthermore, perhapsit is the other reason why the citizens do not use the river for water sports.For example, the river crashes so turbulently that it is impossible to do watersports in the water; or there are other places for aquatic sports in the citywhere people prefer to enjoy themselves. Each of these varieties of possibilitiescan cripple the assumption of the author.

The most significant assumption made by the authorto arrive at the conclusion is that cleaning up the river will result incitizens' increased using of the river. If it is the man-made pollution, suchas the factories along the river release the pollution, that lead to theterrible problems about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell,cleaning up the river will solve the problems. However, if the awful quality ofthe water and the river's smell are result from the odd alga live in the water, it is not appropriate forthe inhabitants to do water sports in the river even though the river has beencleaned.

In sum, this argument relies heavily on itsassumptions, perhaps too heavily. Denying any one of these assumptions will resultin a weakened or, in some case, invalid conclusion. To strengthen the argument,the author would need to not only address these assumptions above but also listmore information to warrant any action.

普渡哥

第三点是重点。

竹林中人

嗯，还是前面一篇的意见，如果能有一个清晰的逻辑顺序，文章会更好