Please Evaluate my GRE Argumentative Essay

[kimjam]

Please evaluate my argumentative essay for the analytical writing section of the GRE. I'm particularly concern about the development and quality of my counterarguments. I will gladly return the favour! 

 

The current argument cites a survey of Mason City Residents' favourite recreational activities to support increasing the budget to clean the river and the annual riverside recreational facilities. The following argument, however, is flawed because it extrapolates the result of a survey to support a causal effect. 

 

Firstly, the water sports, swimming, boating, and fishing, all require different river conditions that the author fails to recognize. While the cleanness and hygiene of the river may improve following river maintenance, the condition of the river may still not be suitable for these activates. The author does not examine whether there are proper boating docks; attractive scenery; calm swimming conditions; or vibrant sea life conditions. In essence, the term "quality" undermines these necessary conditions to attract city residents to the river. 

 

Considering that the "quality" of the river is suitable for the conditions for the resident's favourite riverside recreations, they may still choose to enjoy these activities else where or in a minimal number of times. This analysis touches on the broad generalization of the survey. More specifically, the survey asks the residents to rank their "favourite" recreational activity. not how often they partake in their favourite recreational activity or where they prefer to partake in these activities. For many residents, boating and fishing may be a family affair where everyone has to interrupt their normal routine to set aside a time for a extended trip or longer excursion. Despite improving the quality and cleanliness of the river, the resident may still choose alternative rivers or lakes to partake in their favourite water activity. 

 

The argument also leaves many other unanswered questions about the relevance of the survey. The author attempts to relate the result of the surveys to public opinion that may have been circulating for years. While a survey, as irrelevant ask it may be, is representative of the residents, residential complaints may be the opinion of a few minorities or highly critical few. Therefore, the line of reasoning that cleaning the river will increase recreational activity is not consistent and therefore, unwarranted. 

 

The author's argument that increasing the budget for riverside recreational activities is a necessity since the improved quality of the river will attract the city residents is unwarranted.