GRE argument practice The author of this proposal askes the city government to increase the yearly budget for riverside recreational facilities. However, the argument is largely based on unjustified, illogical assumptions which make the conclusion somewhat invalid. First, the author cites the surveys according to which water sports are ranked to be Manson City residents' favorite recreational activities. Here it is assumed that the surveys are valid. However, this is not always true. For example, the surveys may provide insufficient options as, after all, we cannot list all the options of recreational activities in a survey. Therefore, the survey could possibly not reflect people's actual favorite recreational activity. Then, the author quotes people’s complaining about the bad quality and smell of the Manson River, in order to show the necessity to clean up the water. This is reasonable. However, questionable assumptions come then as the author convinces that the clean-up will lead to the increasing use of the river for water sports. This is not valid. There is an unsound assumption that the water sports facilities will make more use of the Manson River's water if the water is clean. In fact, there may be other reasons for the low water use. For example, it may be due to some geographical reasons that the utilization of water is inefficient. Also, a clean-up can not necessarily solve the odor and water quality problem for the river. The author here bases the argument on an assumption that increasing the budget will solve this problem. This is true in some cases. For example, the odor caused by industrial pollution can be controlled and solved by governmental measures, in which case a clean-up is reasonable. Similar to the previous rebuttal, there could be other reasons for this problem, such as geographical and biological factors that make the problem unable to be easily solved by just putting money into it. Finally, even if the use of the river for the water sports would be increasing, this does not mean the government should invest more in the riverside recreational facilities. The author’s argument for more budget is possibly based on an assumption that the water sports facilities’ increasing use of water will lead to its increasing need for money. This assumption is not necessarily true. In conclusion, the argument is invalid as it is based on unsound assumptions and contains logic flaws.