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 a

The argument seems true generally, but meticulous analysis makes it specious. Various unwarrented assumptions have weaken the argument. In order to strengthen the argument following three questions must be answered. Firstly, how many complains were reported against the foul smell from the river? It may be possible that the complain throughout the year was made by a single person. By not providing specific number of complains the argument is weakened. Secondly, is the foul smell from river because of the river pollution? What if the foul smell was due to the naturally occurring Sulphur in the river so that cleaning of the river doesn't work and hence, no possibility of recreational activities in the river. The argument doesn't mention anything about the causes of foul smell in the river which badly undermine the argument. Finally, do the residents, really interested in riverside recreational activities? The argument doesn't provide any evidence that the residents eagerly wanted to get involved in activities like swimming, boating or any other riverside recreational activities, which weaken the argument. In conclusion, the unwarranted assumptions and unsubstantiated conclusion have weakened the argument and hence to strengthen the argument, rigorous study must be done in the complains, causes of foul smell in river, and river related recreational hobbies of the residents.