In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fish ing) 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.
The author of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project.
For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior. Many surveys con ducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague. While water sports may be among the residents’ favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Are they willing to sacrifice the municipal golf course for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities.
Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river? The answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons our residents use or do not use the river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in? These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget.
Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river.
We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new buildings fall into dilapidation while the state drags the river clean-up. Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from. The current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on where it will come from.
Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any
action.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 12 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 31 15
No. of Words: 507 350
No. of Characters: 2565 1500
No. of Different Words: 265 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.745 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.059 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.565 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.355 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.756 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.355 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.231 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.231 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.04 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 620, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...emains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 798, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Indeed,
...course for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough infor...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, likewise, may, regarding, so, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2621.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 507.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16962524655 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65029461763 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 270.0 204.123752495 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532544378698 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 836.1 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 19.7664670659 157% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.6356374607 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.5483870968 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3548387097 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.83870967742 5.70786347227 32% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211291543557 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0535277365284 0.0743258471296 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0646225735339 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10308103397 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0799767652434 0.0628817314937 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.41 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 98.500998004 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.