Please guide me and give feedback on my response to the below mentioned argument essay. I need help to understand where i stand and how much improvement is required to get a good score in essays.
Topic :- In surveys Mason city residents rank water sports(swimming, boating and fishing) among their favourite recreational activities. The Mason river flowing through the city is rarely used for the pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational activities. 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 activities.
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 the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Response: The author's argument that the city government should devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational activity needs more information and thought. In the argument the author draws conclusions based on incomplete and vague assumptions. The Author diverts from the actual solution and fails to understand why the demand and craze for water sports have decreased among the residents.
The author states that the favorite recreational activities of the residents of mason city is "rarely" to be seen now. This is because the Mason river flowing through the city is maintained. The river is no longer fit to be used for water sporting events because it is dirty. The author says that "little" of the budget is used for it. The term "little" is a vague assumption made by the author and it is not a fair implication of the conclusion. As the river maintenance might not require a lot of money or any more than it has been assigned. It might only require a dedicated team that works on the maintenance of the river.
The author concludes that more money should be devoted towards the riverside recreational activities. But according to the assumptions made here, the implication here should have been that more money from the budget should be devoted to the maintenance of the river which in turn promotes riverside recreational activities.
The argument could be better concluded by specifying more accurate numbers in case of assumptions on the budget for river maintenance. The author should concentrate on the maintenance of the river instead of promotion of recreational activities. I believe that the author fails to understand the demand and supply needs here as the demand of the water sports will increase only if the supply of clean water is provided.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)