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 litt

The author's argument to the state to devote more money to clean up The Mason River with the hope that it will increase the usage of the river for recreational activities by Mason City residents is based on some assumptions that need to be substantiated. He presumes that the use of the river for water sports will increase because it ranked among their favorite recreational activities without providing any relevant data to persuade the city government to adopt his proposal.

How relevant is the survey data? Does it address people that actually participate in water sports or just people that love the sports? Unfortunately, the author does not provide an answer to this in the survey. If we take the bulk of the survey reviewers to be lovers of the game, then the likelihood of the anticipated increase in the use of the river may be defeated. He needs to establish that the residents that ranked the survey will also be willing to use the riverside recreational facility.

Another gray area in the author's argument is the complaints from the residents. Are all the complainants lovers of water sports? A resident complaining of the river's smell does not necessarily mean that he would like to use the river for sporting activities even if it's clean. The residents may be complaining of the environmental effect of polluted water for the sake of thier health and not for recreational reasons. The number of residents who like water sports, as captured in the complaints, maybe grossly lower than the rest of the other residents.

Contradictorily, the author stated in the argument that The Mason River that passes through the city is seldom used by the residents for their pursuits. Why should the city government allocate more more to the budget for the river clean up when there is a possibility that the recreational facility will not be optimally used. For the city to accept the proposal the the author must guarantee that the facility will be used and have return on investment by the city government.

In conclusion, the author can make a strong appeal to the city government to allocate more money to the clean up if he is able to validate this assumptions with a convincing statistical data of the survey, accurate evaluation of the complaints and a good socio-economic benefits.