The author of the given argument appeals to the city government for devoting more money for riverside recreational activities on the basis of an underlying assumption that the river's use for sport activities is sure to increase.However, in order for the government officials to accept the claim the argument still needs adequate crystallization. Apparently, the argument seems to be convincing.Nevertheless, many aspects in it are rife with loopholes.
Firstly, it is mentioned that there have been complaints concerning the river water's foul odor and quality. Although, it is stated that the complaints were brought to notice by the city residents, it is nowhere mentioned as to whether who these residents exactly are. It might be probable that these residents may have just made up an excuse to draw the government's attention. Unless the residents are not local dwellers along the banks of the river, one cannot assume that any other person could know more about the river's aura.
Secondly, despite of the mention of the highest ranking of the river for adequate recreational activities, there is also a note of the rare use of the river for recreational sports.Now arises the question whether the residents of the city really like sports? If yes, then why exactly is there insufficient usage of the river for the same purpose? Drawing an assumption from the given premise, it can be said that there is a possibility of the presence of an additional water-body in the city. It might be a lake or a bay where water-sports are in high practice.For the argument to be more valid, there should have been a lucid mention about the number of water bodies in Mason city.
Thirdly, no adequate statistics regarding the distribution of money by the city department for maintaining riverside recreational facilities has been stated. Had there been an elaborate quantitative note as to what percent of the revenue obtained is spent for the maintenance, the argument would have appeared more sound.May be the maintenance expenditure is sufficient as it can be assumed that water sports are practiced in other water body.Thus, redundant expenses would be borne by the city department for increasing the budget.Rather, the same amount could be involved in some fruitful sectors like education, social work or enterprise and the city state would benefit at large.
In a nutshell, it can therefore be concluded that the author of the argument should focus on such inadequacies before appealing for the river's maintenance to the city government.