Sanjay George

Please evaluate the following argument task based on GRE AWA scale. ---------------------- QUESTION : In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fish - ing) 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 the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted. ----------------------------- RESPONSE : The government of Mason City should probably allot more money to riverside recreations, but the given argument is not strong enough to compel the move. The argument is full of holes and assumptions that need to be dealt with in order to make a cogent argument. The author states that water sports rank top among the resident’s favorite recreational activities, solely based on surveys. However, there is no clarity in the scope and depth of the surveys. For example, the survey could have been conducted among the youth of the city, who might prefer water sports to other activities. Such might not be the case for the rest of the population. Also, the survey could have consisted only a few options under the ‘favorite recreation’ section, thus limiting the possible choices for the residents. We don’t know about the credibility of the survey. To make a convincing case, the surveys should represent the whole of the city’s residents. Since it clearly fails to do so, the argument cannot be backed by the surveys. Additionally, the author states that there have been numerous complaints about the poor quality of the river, and cleaning it would surely increase its usage. However, there is no clarity about the source of those complaints. The people who complained could be the small population that has interest in water sports. Or it could be a small group of environmentalists. Thus, cleaning the river need not necessarily increase its usage significantly. Adding to the unwarranted assumptions, the author also states that the cleaning of the Mason River would surely lead to its increased usage for water sports. This has major hole in the fact that a clean river alone is not enough for water sports. The residents need to have the time, facility, and equipment for sports like swimming, boating, etc.; considering that they are interested in water sports in the first place. It could also be possible that the weather of the city is not suitable for such events, a factor that is not taken into consideration at all by the argument. Further, if the river’s smell was caused by the dumping of wastes from nearby factories, it could have killed most of the fauna and flora of the river, rendering it unusable for fishing, which is mentioned in the argument as one of the favorite activities. Keeping the river clean and beautiful should be a priority for the people, as well as the government of Mason City, but the given argument fails to be convincing enough to compel the government to allot more money for riverside activities.