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 plan Mason City’s government increases budget to riverside recreational facilities in order to exert citizen’s water sport activities to be increase may well have merit. Based on several doubtful premises and assumptions, and relied on evidences provided, it is imprudent to guarantee the success of the scheme.

The most obvious issue being concerned is that the authority believes to clean up the river just by devoting more money to riverside facilities. Indeed, there are many hypotheses can be employed argue against this claim: the main polluter of Mason River is a chemical factory nearby and therefore to no avail, raising the cost of cleaning could not resolve the trouble. The riverside recreational facilities, moreover, may expose financial corruption leads to inefficient activities. Hence, in order to redress the difficulty of river hygiene, the members of city board should strive to search for primary cause of water pollution rather than lavish cash on river purification.

Another problem might be encountered is that once the government finishes the decontamination of the river, that more and more inhabitants would elect Mason River as their spot for recreational activities remains arguable. For illustration if there are a significant number of water parks in city downtown, it is unquestionable when these parks continue to be more favorite places for visitors than city’s river. Moreover, the state and geographical condition of river whether is suitable for water sport or not remains ambiguous due to the assumption that river contained a noticeable number of meanders would be inappropriate for recreational activities. Therefore, the goal of receiving more attention from Mason residents needs to be mulled over based on a more comprehensive study of relevant factors.

The last issue subtle is the number of interviewees filed complaints about the quality of the river. To be more specific, there are maybe around 10 or 20 residents resided along the river felt the problem insufferable. In addition, the inhabitants regularly grumbled about the condition of river might account for an insignificant percentage of the whole population. Hence the authority should provide further statistical evidences in order to convince their argument.

Generally speaking, the argument is not well reasoning for the above-mentioned issues and therefore it is not convincing. Actual cause of tainted river, more rigorous studies of Mason citizens’ hobbies and the percentage of critics should come up before plan’s approbation.