The author of the given article assumes that if the Mason River is cleaned, its use for the purpose of water sports will definitely increase and hence suggests the local government to spend more money in their annual budget for developing such recreational facilities along the banks of river. His analysis is filled with unwarranted data and fallacious reasoning. The detailed explanation of the flaws in his argument will be done further in the ensuing paragraphs.
The first and foremost reason which renders the author's argument useless is that he has based his hypothesis on a survey conducted for a few residents of the Mason City. As he fails to mention the number of people who took part in this survey, there is a possibility that a major population of the city might not have been included while conducting it. The use of river for water sports depends on various factors such as age, sex, financial situation, health conditions, personal preferences, etc. Hence, it is quite illogical on the author's part to generalize the use of Mason River for water sports just by considering some erroneous data based on choices of some people of the city. If the author had mentioned a complete statistics of the survey and involved all the residents of the city in his research, then his argument could have been more valid.
Secondly, if the river has to be used for river sports it is necessary that the river is calm. If there is too much turbulence in the river, then using it for water sports like swimming and boating could be quite dangerous. The depth of the river should also be less to ensure no casualties happen with the participants of the events. Moreover, one should know about the dangerous aquatic animals living in the river. If the river is inhabited by reptiles such as snakes and crocodiles, then it will definitely be avoided by the people for the recreational activities. The author's argument would have been more convincing if he had mentioned about the flow of the water current of the river.
Lastly, the author believes that if the river is cleaned then it will be used for water sports more frequently by the natives of the Mason City. But, he does not consider the geographical location of the river. It is possible that the river may be flowing through the outskirts of the city, and hence people who live in the main city area might not be able to access it. Moreover, he also does not give detail of the publicly owned lands on the banks of river such as gardens, restaurants, etc. Thus, people might visit these places for their leisure time instead of using the river for the recreational activities. The author's reasoning would have been more logical if he had included the data about the surroundings and location of the river in his study.
Thus to conclude, the argument made by the author is completely unreasonable and lacks coherence and hence fails to convince the readers to use the Mason river for the water sports.