The passage concludes that government should invest more money in the riverside recreational facilities of Mason River. The author highlights the benefit it will pose to the residents of the Mason City based on a survey. While at first look the arguments seems quite conceivable, a closer look spells out a number of assumptions that could undermine its assessment.
Firstly, the arguer is talking about some survey done in the Mason City. But no information is given regarding this survey. Perhaps few people were part of this survey; thus, undermining authenticity of the survey, as government cannot devote large money on the project based on such survey. Moreover, there is no guarantee that by spending large amount of money on riverside recreational facilities it will be used by majority of residents of the city.
Secondly, the author mentions about the complain made by people regarding the quality of river water and river's smell. Again, there is no data provided by the author about number of complains made. Maybe there are 10-15 complains made in past few years regarding it, indicating that issue is not that exigent, in the way presented by the author. Therefore, contributing large part of budget on such project may be not beneficial for the residents of the city. Perhaps Mason City needs more number of schools or road maintenance on an urgent basis, and this budget can be utilized on such important projects. Hence, before spending money all the aspects should be considered carefully.
Lastly, there are chances that cleaning of Mason River will not change people' interest towards using it for the recreational activities. The arguer is making assumptions and based on such speculations big portion of budget should not be assigned to it. A thorough survey should be conducted and germane list of questions should be prepared, which clearly indicates likes and dislikes of residents towards such recreational activities. Additionally, there are chances that after the cleaning of
Mason River people will not maintain it and within few months, again the river will become dirty and stinky. So, the government should made the investment wisely.
To conclude, though it seems that the author has done some research before backing the prospect of contribution of large portion of budget for cleaning of Mason River, an in-depth scrutiny reveals that none of the argument put forth has been backed by exhaustive analysis; thus, providing little credible support. As it stands, the recommendation looks flawed in multiple aspects, and may not give result as expected by the author.