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 the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Response :
The nexus made between the Mason City surveys about recreational activities and need of allotment of funds for cleaning the river is specious. It is a general tendency that the local people will vouch for clean river. The argument alone is not sufficient to conclude as there are various assumptions made as the argument progresses.
It's never mentioned that the surveys made within the Mason City covers the people living near the river or away from it. It neither mentions the age groups who participated in the surveys nor the idea that those people who like water sports participated in the surveys. Also, the fact that the surveys show that water sports are among the favorite recreational activities is inconsistent with the fact that the river is rarely used for these pursuits and a little of city's budget is employed in maintaining riverside recreational facilities.
The details about the complains are also not revealed, it may be possible that complains are logged by same people, numerous times who may be living near the river or away from it. The people may be complaining due to basic tendency to have a cleaner and pollution free river. There is no fact mentioned in the argument which states that people want the river cleaned for recreational activities.
The source of river pollution is not known, if the river is polluted by artificial wastes from the city then it can be cleaned. The water pollution may be caused due to some geographical features as underground mines or leakage of sulphur gas from underground deposits which may be the reason of fowl smell, in such cases the water pollution problem cannot be solved.
Also, it's very uncertain that whether the funding program can be carried out successfully because it depends on political factors such as agreement between parties and associations.
The proclivity of the whole mass of the population towards water sports is unknown. Even after the river is cleaned, there is no certainty that people will devote their time in water sports.
An apt reason for the cleaning of the river and investing the funds on recreational facilities can be attracting tourists and thus improving the overall living standard of the population. It may also answer any health concerns of the people. The argument made by the author is supported by weak premises. The fund invested on the recreational facilities can be of no use if people do not turn up for 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 nexus made between the Mason City surveys about recreational activities and need of allotment of funds for cleaning the river is specious. It is a general tendency that the local people will vouch for clean river. The argument alone is not sufficient to conclude as there are various assumptions made as the argument progresses.
It's never mentioned that the surveys made within the Mason City covers the people living near the river or away from it. It neither mentions the age groups who participated in the surveys nor the idea that those people who like water sports participated in the surveys. Also, the fact that the surveys show that water sports are among the favorite recreational activities is inconsistent with the fact that the river is rarely used for these pursuits and a little of city's budget is employed in maintaining riverside recreational facilities.
The details about the complains are also not revealed, it may be possible that complains are logged by same people, numerous times who may be living near the river or away from it. The people may be complaining due to basic tendency to have a cleaner and pollution free river. There is no fact mentioned in the argument which states that people want the river cleaned for recreational activities.
The source of river pollution is not known, if the river is polluted by artificial wastes from the city then it can be cleaned. The water pollution may be caused due to some geographical features as underground mines or leakage of sulphur gas from underground deposits which may be the reason of fowl smell, in such cases the water pollution problem cannot be solved.
Also, it's very uncertain that whether the funding program can be carried out successfully because it depends on political factors such as agreement between parties and associations.
The proclivity of the whole mass of the population towards water sports is unknown. Even after the river is cleaned, there is no certainty that people will devote their time in water sports.
An apt reason for the cleaning of the river and investing the funds on recreational facilities can be attracting tourists and thus improving the overall living standard of the population. It may also answer any health concerns of the people. The argument made by the author is supported by weak premises. The fund invested on the recreational facilities can be of no use if people do not turn up for recreational activities.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment