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 argument that the city government should devote more money in this year's budget to riversider recreational facilities is not logically convincing since it ignores certain crucial assumptions and it has poor vocbulary.

First, the poor voaculary is found clearly in the word "surveys" where the author did not clarify any details about those surveys. Who has made them? On which standards are they based? The claim that the residents rank water sports among their favorite recreational activities is not necessarily true as long as the word "surveys" do not identify much information about those surveys.

Second, The argument claims that cleaning up the Mason river will surely increase the use water sports of the river. How can the author make sure of this increase after cleaning up? Can't there be another reasons beside the water bad quality and bad smell that prevent residents from water sports? What about the safety of the residents in this water? Are there any information about the climatic conditions in this river?

Finally, the argument assumes that increasing the budget devoted to recreational facilities will increase water sports activities. The argument itself already said the there is a little budget devoted to the same issue. There is no any clarification about the current devoted budget or the needed increase in the budget to clean the river. If the current budget is enough, why will the government city increase it? If it is not enough, how much increase is needed to get the needed job done?

Thus, the argument is not completely sound. The evidence in support of conclusion that the devoting more money to clean up the river will increase the use of water sports in the river does little to prove the conclusion since it has ignored the assumptions already raised.

Ultimately, the argument could have been strengthened if the author clarified more about the surveys which confirms that the water sports are favourable to residents in Mason city, or if he has indicated the reasons for which the river is rarely used for water sports, if he has indicated that is lack of cleanliness only or there are other reasons that made the river not used for water sports, if he has clarified more information about the current budget and the needed new budget to get the job done.