Essay topics: 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.
While it may be true that the poor quality of the river and the little amount of the riverside recreational facilities will decrease the possibilities that people use it to do water sports. To support this conclusion, the author cited an obscure survey, presented a weakened relative phenomenon and made an ostensible conclusion that cleaning up the river and devoting more money to the riverside recreational facilities are sure to increase use of the river for water sports. The author’s demonstration is fraught with dubious assumptions, making the conclusion unconvincing.
The survey in Mason City residents about their favorite recreational activities is not persuasive. Generally, a scientific and reasonable survey should not set any limits to the volunteers, otherwise we may acquire the unprecise and even wrong information which can lead to a wrong conclusion. There are no details about this survey to prove its accuracy and authenticity. Actually, if we design a similar questionnaire with options: swimming, boating, fishing and basketball, the majority of these residents may choose basketball as their favorite sports, this means maybe the residents do not like water sports at all, they just are loath. The author still needs more evidence to strengthen the validity of this survey.
When it comes to the complaints from the residents, it cannot be the proof that there is a sever pollution which causes the restricted use of the river and with the river becoming clean, use of water sports will increase. The specific amount of complaints are as important as the proportion of these residents, we need these to know the real status of the river. Besides, assuming the river is cleaned, if the residents more like to do water sports indoors, there won’t be any rise of use of the river for water sports. In fact, the residents may prefer the indoor water sports and probably only few people complain about the quality and smell of the river. The author needs more direct evidence to support his point.
As for the solution the author suggests, it implies that the riverside recreational facilities have a positive correlation with the use of the river for water sports. It’s not cogent to assert an unchecked relationship between two entities. The author provides no evidence but his assertion as the foundation of his conclusion. If most of the residents prefer to play at riverside rather than water sports, then devoting more money to these facilities could be a totally wrong decision. The author’s process of demonstration is fraught with assertive assumptions, the correct analysis needs adequate evidences.
To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that cleaning the river and devoting more money to riverside recreational facilities can increase use of the river for water sports, though the author’s statement may refer to some objective incidents. To prove the author’s conclusion, it can be a good choice to use a more detailed, scientific and strict way without any assertions which have no basis.
|Post date||Users||Rates||More about the essay|
|5 days 11 hours ago||ForGG||58||Read full essay|
|1 week 1 day ago||Iman102||59||Read full essay|
|1 week 3 days ago||chapagain08||78||Read full essay|
|1 week 6 days ago||seonjungkim||50||Read full essay|
|2 weeks 1 day ago||p2312vasant||58||Read full essay|
|1 month 1 week ago||kevlarpeng||48||Read full essay|
|1 month 3 weeks ago||LGI||61||Read full essay|
|2 months 1 day ago||King kobra||59||Read full essay|
|2 months 3 weeks ago||dd123||50||Read full essay|
|4 months 2 weeks ago||Lokesh Varshney||40||Read full essay|