GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：devote money for recreational facilities
- 2020年04月15日17:21 来源：小站整理
- 参与（0） 阅读（282）
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 discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, the author fails to make an argument for the justification of increased monetary resources based on the potential of increased recreational patronage of the river. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward ranking river sports over a less attractive option. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live in the vicinity of the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. Unless the survey is provided, analyzed, and found to be of use for the case presented above, it cannot be accepted as fully representative, valid, and reliable.
Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smells bad. While a polluted, stinking river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen the argument, a full and complete survey should be performed for the explicit purpose of gather opinions regarding the matter at hand.
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river's water and the smell, the author suggests that a river cleanup will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from problems that can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and smell is caused by pollution, this could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water that emit a strong smell of sulfur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be affected by a cleanup. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon the quality of water or river usage. Regardless of whether or not the river's quality can be improved, the author does not effectively demonstrate that there is a connection between water quality and river usage.