In this argument, the author relies upon a survey and a number of assumptions to argue that future plans to clean up Mason River necessitate that Mason City spend more on its budget for improvements of lands along Mason River. Closer inspection reveals these assumptions to be in error. There is a critical problem with the writers assumption that the reason Mason City residents seldom use Mason River for recreation, despite the fact that they enjoy water sports, is that Mason River is polluted. Though there have been complaints about the water, there is no evidence to support the assumption that this is the primary reason for the rivers unpopularity. One can imagine many other reasons that residents would avoid the river. perhaps it is perilously fast or too cold, or the residents of Mason City have little time for recreation. At any rate, we cannot assume that pollution is what deters the residents of Mason City from using the river. With that in mind, we cannot assume that the plans to clean up Mason River will significantly increase the rivers usage. If, for instance, the river is perilously fast, then cleaning it up will not likely increase the confidence of Mason City residents that they can use the river safely. Thus, if it is illogical to assume that the recreational use of the river will increase as a result of the clean-up plan, we cannot justify improving the publicly owned land along the Mason River. Even if we accept that pollution is the factor that deters Mason City residents from using the river, we cannot conclude that improvements are justified. perhaps the publicly owned lands already host sufficient facilities for water sport recreation as it is. In that event, improving them would be unnecessary. To make this argument, the writer must demonstrate that the existing facilities are insufficient for the increase in use that could potentially occur, but we have been given no statistics advancing this premise. In total, the argument is weak. To improve it, the author must above all do one thing: demonstrate that pollution is the factor that deters river usage. If he then can show that more people will use the river simply because it is being cleaned up, he must also demonstrate that the current facilities on the river banks are insufficient to accommodate the increased recreational usage. Only then will his argument be persuasive.
在这场争论中，作者依赖调查一些假设认为，未来计划清理梅森河，有必要花费梅森市的更多改进土地梅森河沿岸的预算。仔细检查发现这些假设是错误的。这是作者的假设，梅森市很少使用梅森河娱乐的原因的一个关键问题，尽管事实上他们喜欢水上运动，是梅森河被污染。虽然有关于水的投诉，没有证据支持的假设，这是主要的原因，这条河流不受欢迎。人们可以想象许多其他的原因，居民会避开这条河。也许是很快或过冷，或梅森市居民很少有时间娱乐。无论如何，我们不能认为污染是什么阻止梅森市居民使用河。记住，我们不能假定，清理梅森河计划将显著增加河流的用法。如果，例如，河水很快，然后清理它不会增加梅森市居民信心，他们可以安全地使用河。因此，如果它是假设河流的娱乐用途由于清理计划增加不合逻辑，我们不能提高公有土地的梅森河。即使我们接受污染的因素阻止梅森城市居民使用的河，我们不能得出改进是合理的。或许，公有土地已经拥有了足够的水上娱乐设施，因为它是。在这一事件中，提高他们将是不必要的。为了使这一论点，作者必须证明，现有的设施是不够的增加使用，可能会出现，但我们已经给出了没有统计，推进这一前提。总的说，这一观点是很弱的。改善它，作者首先必须做的一件事：证明污染因子，阻止河流的使用。如果他然后可以表明，更多的人将会使用河，仅仅是因为它是被清理，他必须也表明，当前设施河岸上是不够的，以适应增加的娱乐使用。只有这样他的论证才能有说服力。