INTRO

In his statement, the author claims that the city government should allocate more money towards riverside recreational facilities. (paraphrase of the author's argument). Though his claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid. Hence his conclusion is weak and unconvincing and has several flaws.

ATTACK PREMISES

The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author cites the surveys of city residents as the basis of his argument that the city residents love water sports. However, the scope and validity of the survey is at issue. The author does not give any indication as to the real reasons for which the surveys were conducted. For example, the survey could have asked the residents whether they preferred using the river for water sports or for a hydroelectric power project. This could have swayed the residents toward water sport. Also, the sample may not have been representative of the city residents, asking only those residents who live near the river. Unless the survey is truly representative, it cannot be used the author to effectively back his statements. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and thereby render his conclusion unacceptable.

ATTACK ASSUMPTION

In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author implies that the residents do not use the river for swimming, boating and fishing despite their interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted river would likely cut down on river sports, a plausible connection between the river's current state and residents unwillingness to use it for river sports is not made by the author. Until we can know the reasons for which the residents avoid using the river, this assumption of the author lacks any legs to stand upon. Also, the author assumes that the usage of the river for sports activities is bound to increase once it is cleaned. This assumption may fail if the pollution in the river is due to natural causes rather than man made ones. Consequently, a river clean may have no impact. The author weakens his

argument by making these assumptions and failing to provide explication of these purported links.

STRENGTHENING ARGUMENTS

While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, he could very well strengthen his arguments by providing more concrete evidences. For example, he could provide a truly representative survey thatlinks the residents' lack of use of the river for sports activities to the pollution level in the river. He could have also stated how the river became polluted, whether the pollution in the river is due to natural causes and whether the cleaning activity is feasible or not. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, he could improve his argument significantly.

CONCLUSION In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.