Please rate the essay on 0-6 scale.
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
================================================================= ================================================================= ================================================================= ================================================================= ============================
Water sports might be the favourite recreational activity of mason city citizens according to the surveys but, ironically, mason river flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits (as the author quotes). hence, the devotion of a little of the city park department's fund can be justified.
Residents of Mason city constantly complain for the quality of river water and the river's smell but that does not ensue the increased use of the river for water sports at all. This is because, author does not have evidences to prove that the residents complain for the cleanliness of the river in order to use the river for recreational activities. It might be possible that the residents have health concerns and they are worried about the in-hygienic conditions of the river that may cause diseases in the city.
Also, author herself states that in spite of some of the facilities provided by the city park department, the river is rarely used by the residents. In fact, author should look for the sufficient reasons for the river is not being used by the residents in spite of the facilities provided by the government. Therefore, the conclusion made by author that after the cleaning of the river, the use of river for water sports would increase is conspicuously presumptuous.
Another claim that author makes is that the city government should devote more money in the coming year to the riverside recreational activities. This claim is based on the conclusion that is already presumptuous. However, government should first analyze the requirements of the city and then prioritize them according to their importance and only then should decide the amount of budget that needs to be spend on recreational facilities. If after cleaning of the river, some increase in the usage of river for water sports is seen, only then, should the government consider increasing the amount of money to be spend on riverside recreational facilities(if demanded by the residents). There might be several other preemptive requirements of the city that needs to be attended first.
Therefore, author's claims that the cleaning of the river would surely increase the usage of river for water sports and that the government should devote more money on riverside recreational activities are completely precarious.