▶ Your Answer :
In the letter, the author argues
that the city government should devote more money in this year's budget to
riverside recreational facilities to make more residents use the river for
water sports. Although the argument may seem convincing at first, the unsubstantiated
assumptions lead me to conclude that the argument is flawed in many aspects.
First, the author adamantly
believes that the survey respondents are representative of all city residents.
It is plausible that the survey respondents are biased. To be specific, the
survey could have been conducted mainly on young people who prefers to do water
sports or the people who leave near river. If the survey was conducted on
certain group of people who is likely to answer that their favorite recreational
activity is the water sports, we cannot take the survey at the face value.
Next, the author concludes that the
clean-up of Mason River will surely increase the number of people using the
river for water sports. However, the author needs to supplement the argument
with the assumptions that the river is perfectly proper only if the quality and
the smell issue are improved. However, it is also possible that the river is
inherently not suitable for water sports because of its conditions such as
shape and the speed of the water. Moreover, it is also unsure whether the water
clean up can get rid of the bad smells. If the source of the bad smell is from
the mosses attached to the rocks, just cleaning up the water cannot get rid of
the bad smell in the river.
Finally, the author needs to
supplement the assumption with more explanations that the use of budget to
riverside recreational facilities is the best way to satisfy the city
residents' needs. The spending of budget always comes at the expense of other
costs that could have been used in other aspects. We do not know whether the
city has an educational issue that the money should be spent or the roads that
the urgent construction is required. The author needs to provide more
explanations that the use of money on the riverside recreational facilities is
the best option for the residents.
In summary, the author’s argument
is unconvincing on many grounds. In order to bolster the argument, the author
needs to provide more explanations on the survey results, rule out other
factors for the increase of the number of people using the river for water
sports, and consider other realms that the budget can be spent.