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 rec

TOEFL, IELTS, Personal Statement and CV Proofreading Services. GRE Writing 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 rec

  • Jacky211
    University: Jiangnan
    Nationality: China
    August 11, 2020 at 1:34 pm

    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.

    Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

    In this argument, the arguer concludes that more money should be devoted to entertainment facilities along the river. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out the popularity of water sports among Mason City residents from surveys and the promise from state to clean up the river, which will surly make the Mason River more attractive. However, the arguer rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

    To start with, the arguer assumes that the surveys, in which water sports rank first among many favorite recreational activities in Mason City, is reliable. However, let us give it a second thought, this assumption is untenable. Obviously, we do not know whether the samples of surveys are all-around. For example, they may merely interview people in sports centers or gyms. This range is too narrow since many people who do not like sports, let alone water sports, are ruled out in the sample. Such incomplete sample scope can account for the relative high rank of water sports. Plus, the sample size is unknown. If the survey only covers a few people, it will not be a robust evidence to support the rank. Therefore, more high-quality data is needed before the arguer can sweep out the doubt whether the surveys are valid.

    Further, the author attempts to establish a casual relation between the poor quality of the river’s water and rarity use for water sports. Nevertheless, here lies a flaw in the arguer’s assumption: not only dirty water can be the reason the phenomenon. Basically, it is highly possible that other factors contribute to low frequency of use. For instance, the river may lie in remote area of the city, and residents may drive for hours to go there. In this case, it is reasonable that people are reluctant to waste plenty of time in cars to go there. Moreover, there may be another perfect place for water entertainment in the city. People prefer to enjoy there rather than along the Mason River. If the arguer can rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities, then we can have a more precise picture of the feasibility of this of this conclusion.

    Finally, even assuming that the survey data is correct and that the causal relationship mentioned above holds. The arguer fails to assume that the city government has the ability to devote these facilities. Essentially, in this assumption exists a noticeable flaw: the government may not have enough money. To be specific, it is likely that the government consider that education system, or social security deserve more attention in comparison with the entertainment facilities.

    To sum up, through an examination of the author’s argument, it is clear that the current evidence is insufficient for a robust conclusion as to whether the government should devote money to entertainment equipment along the Mason River. If the argument had refined the loose inferences discussed above it would have been, so at least it seems to me, more thorough acceptable.

    August 14, 2020 at 2:10 am

    Score: Ungraded.

    I will send you screenshots to illustrate specific problems.