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 residents of Mason City may engage in more recreational activities than they previously did but it may not be for the reasons stated by the writer. The writer’s association of increased usuage of the Mason River for water sports to the need for spending more on recreational activities is flawed. First, the writer fails to provide cogent proofs that more people would use the river when it is cleaned up. Second, he fails to state the other activities engaged in by the residents and why the government should devote more money to funding these activities.

The writer’s first claim is that water sports is a favorite activity for the city’s residents. However, he fails to state how the residents engaged in these activities when the river was unusable. If residents continued to use the river inspite of the water quality and smell, the writer’s argument that usuage may increase when it is cleaned up is supported. However, if residents found alternative means to engage in their favorite activity, there may be no increase in usuage. Hence, his claim is weakened.Also, the writer fails to state a timeline for the survey and when the river became unhealthy. An evidence of the number of residents who used the river before it became bad would assist in evalutating the writer’s arguments.

The writer would also bolster his claim by providing proof on the number od residents that engage in water sports. This is because individuals may say that they enjoy an activity but do not do it. Thus, relying on people’s self reports is faulty. The writer should provide figures on the number of people who participate in water sports.

The author also associates his claim that more residents in the city would engage in water sports when the river is fixed to the goverment allocating more funds to recreational facilities. This association is specious and weak. First, the author fails to mention other activities residents engage in. Do they like to visit the art center? If so how many residents do and what is the current state of the city’s art center? Evidenece such as the aforementioned would help in evaluating the argument. The writer also fails to mention if these activities have a public or private value. For instance, if residents participate in horse racing, should the government build horse tracks and races? The answer is no. Even if the recreational activities engaged in have a public value, would the residents want the the government to provide such service for them?

Thus, the writer needs to reevaluate his argument on the need for more spending towards recreational facilities because the premises he bases his claims on are flawed and there is no proof to support his claims.