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 i

Essay topics:

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 com- plaints 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.

In the argument, the author concludes that improvement in the quality of river can led to increase in use of water sports recreational activities in the city of Mason. The author comes to this contention based on the survey conducted for residents of Mason city and the approval of cleaning plans from the state government. While this might be true, the author needs to provide three pieces of additional evidence in order to bolster the assertion’s credibility.

First of all, the author assumes that the survey held for the residents of Mason city is valid, reliable and fully representative of all residents. However this might be not the case. Perhaps the candidate who appeared for survey only likes recreational activities related to water sports – particularly swimming, boating and fishing. In addition, the survey may not be conducted scientifically and may be based on some biasness of the authority who conducted this survey. If it is true that the survey was performed in a non-empirical manner, then the author’s conclusion does not hold water.

Secondly, the author assumes that the number of complaints received from residents regarding the quality of Mason river water and smell are significant. However, this might not be valid. Perhaps if the number of complaints are only few, say 2 or 3, then this argument might not hold water. In addition, this might be a trickery from other water sports authorities in order to degrade the profits of this authority. Thus, if the above examples are valid, then the author’s argument is not overly compelling.

Finally, the author assumes that the plan for cleaning process will be implemented soon enough such that it requires adjustment to this year’s budget. However, it might of possible that it takes plenty amount of time to implement the cleaning process. Perhaps it might take time to approve the plan from various government authority. In addition, all money from the budget doesn’t go to the clean-up process may be due to corruption. Thus, if either scenario above is true, then the author’s contention is significantly weakened.

To conclude, although the central claim of author might hold water that the making the river quality better can attract more people towards the water sports activities and can increase their profits. But the author needs to consider the above three assumptions if he hope to bolster its persuasiveness.

Votes
Average: 5.5 (2 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2024-03-12 Mishtee Gandhi 66 view
2023-08-21 Kathy_zkx 83 view
2023-08-09 DCAD123 60 view
2023-08-01 Fortune Quarshie 68 view
2023-07-23 chwj 80 view
Essay Categories
Essays by user jnp1999 :

Comments

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 394 350
No. of Characters: 1961 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.455 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.977 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.696 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 76 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.7 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.396 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.536 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5