The argument claims that the municipal government of Mason City desides to invest more money for improvement of the Mason river . The main reason for it that the city government predict to develop the water sport. On the ather hand there are several solid arguments for contradicting it.
First , the authors argument readily assumes that after the reacreation of the river side for sport facilities the water sport would be increase. This statement is stretch, aforesaid argument may be not to effect to extend the types of water sport. For example, not all of the city residents want to use the river for sport, it is not guaranteed that the deal of people crave for using the river for totally another needs. Clearly, probably in Mason City are live amount of people whose want to use the river for generate electricity or to water plants or garden. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that all of the population of Mason City suppose to develop the water sport .
Second, the argument claims that the people of Mason City use the river for sport rarely because it has a bad quality to be more clear they don’t like the odor from the river . This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrated any correlation between indirectly only more money for sport facilities and qualitative leap of the water sport among the Mason City inhabitants. To illustrate , it is impossible to develop without the advertising the various types of water sport .While the Mason river previously was used for sport seldom not fact that it increased rapidly after devoted more money . However, afterwords from cleaning the pollution the mason river would be used judiciously, indeed the river in the city would give the huge potential for developing get better.
In fact, it is not at all clear that using the river for sport facilities are better than other one, rather the water sport would be worsen the quality of the water. For instance, there are a lot of people will come to the riverside during the sport competitions , it will lead to risk of dirtying the river more than before. In the argument had provided evidence that the use more money for develop the sport facilities a good way to satisfy the needs of Mason City, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, it is it is that it can’t do only allocate funds for sport facilities. Who can give the guaranties that after the reacreation of riverside for sport the City people run to go for in sport? Is it possible to avert of pollution of Mason River after using for sport? Without convincing answers to this questions one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefor unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts of budget for developing of reacreation of sport facilities in Mason River. In order to assess the merits a certain situation it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, to make a thorough surveys amang the Mason City residents, what give us more information about this argument. Without it the argument remains unsubstantiated open debate.