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 given argument states that cleaning a city’s local river would encourage its citizens to use it for recreational activities, which are popular among its citizens. However, while doing so, the argument states many assumptions lacking adequate evidence and should be critically analyzed before coming to conclusions.

The author assumes that cleaning the river would encourage its use by denizens for water-based recreational activities. This lacks corroboration. In the case that the river is inherently turbulent, cleaning it would not help its use for swimming. If the river is shallow, it is rendered unfit for boating. Neither can one fish on the river, if fish do not breed, due to its flow or ecosystem characteristics. In the event of such reasons, cleaning the river would not boost its use for water sports.

Another contradiction for this assumption would be the presence of alternative water bodies present in the vicinity of the city for recreation. The presence of a still, peaceful and calm lake nearby could perhaps be attracting residents more than the Mason River. Residents can perhaps, prefer such a setting despite the presence of a cleaner river. This point derides the conclusion of the argument which states that cleaning the river would boost its use for recreational facilities.

Besides this, it is assumed that complaints from residents about the Mason River’s stench and turbidity were from residents who were water-recreation enthusiasts. It is possible that passers-by complain much more than enthusiasts, about the quality of river water. In this case, one should consider the complaints from the latter about their deterrents for using the Mason River. Perhaps, they want something other than river cleaning. The demographics behind the complaints need to be studied and the concerned residents should be asked about their views on making the Mason River a better body for water recreation.

Thus, the author makes multiple one-sided assumptions while coming to a conclusion. It is best that a detailed analysis of contributing factors is performed before doing so which can prove such assumptions to be unwarranted.