The argument asserts that the city government has to devote more money for providing recreational facilities and provide some reasons for holding this opinion. While this claim seems convincing at first glance, there are significant underlying flaws that raise doubt about the author’s conclusion.
First of all, the results of survey are problematic in two aspects. First we are not informed who conducted the survey. If this study is constituted by the government, the results might be distorted and reliable because the government may unfairly want to show that a majority of people are interested in water sports such as swimming, boating and fishing in order to do its plan. Second, we are not informed if the survey was confidential. If not, the respondents might provide false information that they believed that the questioners might approve of. In either case, the poll is unreliable.
Second, the argument unfairly relies upon the assumption that the government should devote more money for recreational facilities because it has received a number of complaints from resident. While the author fails to substantiate the causality and what the majority of them want. The argument asserts that they are suffered from quality of the river’s water and the river’s water so if the government just want to dedicate budget to recreational facilities, what percent of the budget will be spent for cleaning the river’s water? What will be the priority of a majority people, enhancing the quality of the river’s water or providing facilities such as boats?
In addition, the argument unfairly assumes that if the government pay for riverside recreational facilities, this will make people satisfied. While no concrete evidence is offered to substantiate this claim. The argument asserts that the people rarely used The Mason River Flowing through the city while we are not informed what the main reason is. Considering that the survey is true, the people may be interested in water sport but they never like to do that in this river.
In sum, this argument falls under some important logical fallacies. If the author were to provide concrete evidence regarding the survey and main causality of complaints his argument was more convincing.
- Topic 2: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Parents are the best teachers. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.66
- Topic 160
- Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive.Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated.54
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. 50
- For many years the city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony. Last year, however, private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. The symph58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 143, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ities, this will make people satisfied. While no concrete evidence is offered to subs...
Line 9, column 141, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...ncrete evidence regarding the survey and main causality of complaints his argumen...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, regarding, second, so, while, as to, in addition, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1917.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 361.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31024930748 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8700012768 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.473684210526 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 594.9 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.8471602857 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.5 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0555555556 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11111111111 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.17539395359 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0512943858747 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0626070638372 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0942672881333 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0569375270722 0.0628817314937 91% => OK
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.