kindly evaluate and give score accordingly
question : "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 examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

my response:
mason city, in which the river mason seems to be tasked to recreationalization by the government and the author assumes that if the government would increase the money for the recreational activities it will increase the water sports in the river. surely the author has assumed wrong through the given ambiguous facts.
firstly, there is no proof that the surveys stating that the city residents lists water sports as their favorite recreational activity is 100% correct. the survey may have included only two households or even two residents of the city. furthermore, there is also no date given that is survey has included only the residents of mason city or included the residents of the other cities as well. therefore, the surveys is vague.
secondly, the author also states that being the water sports the favorite activities, the residents do not use the river for any of their activities. this means that either the river is polluted or it smells bad, or it has many deadly water creatures in it who are dangerous for the residents. although any of the aforementioned is not written by the author. but if these are the cases then recreational will only help the pollution not the creatures or the smell.
moreover, the smell and the pollution can also be natural. if there are natural minerals in the ground of the river which release some kind of mineral which pollutes the water and leaves a bad smell then government funded recreational activity will not do any change in the river.
thirdly, the author has mentioned about the complaints filled by the residents of the mason city. this fact is also not clear at all. the complained could have been filled by only two or three residents again and again over the two years. or the outsiders who visited the city could have filled these complaints. there is no clear data which states that the complaints filled are filled by the majority of the residents. thus, based on this fact the assumption of money for recreational cannot be increased.
fourthly, there is no clear view of the weather of the city, if the mason city is in Alaska then there is no use of increase in the funds as most of the times the river will b frozen, and if the city resides in the tropical region then the rainfall every now and then will naturally clean the river, thus negating the increase in the funds for the recreational activities by the government.
thus, to increase the tourism and the incoming money from their arrival, the recreational activity is good, can be look forward to. but increasing the funds based on the above facts in which the survey stating the residents favorite sports which is not clear at all or the huge number of complaints whose sources are not clear, the government must check for the perfect authentic facts.