In surveys Mason City residents rank water sport (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 activities. For years there have been complaints about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to cleaning up Mason River. Use of the river for water sport is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational activities.
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 this argument, the author states that In Manson city, the residents like to have water sports as favorite recreational activities, But the river is rarely used for such pursuits, and Government has devoted small amount of budget for the maintenance process. The author believes that if the Manson river is clean up it will surely increase the water sport activities, and for that purpose Government should devote more budget for riverside recreational facilities. The author's conclusion about the cleaning river and increasing the budget for the process is seems to be logical and fruitful at first glance.
The author make valid assumptions that might be true if all of its premises were correct and exhaustive; However, His conclusion, is based on the assumptions having no clear evidence and employs the terms lacking clear evidence. Therefore, author's conclusion is not logically convincing.
Firstly, The author assumes that, the residents of the Mason City would like to spend their money and time on their nearby river. The author failed to think about the environment, what if the residents like to spend their sporting time somewhere in peaceful environment, what if the survey conducted was about the game that played in beach area? There is no guarantee that the resident will like to play water sport in riverside near city. The author failed to notice this point.
Secondly, the author's plan about making nearby river clean and use it for sport purpose is seems too Immature, What if government is planing something else ? what if Government is planing to clean the river to make the water for drinking propose ? The author failed to think about the probable ideas, what if government and public thinks, if the river is made sporting are, it will not impure the water more ? The author seems to forget about these things.
Finally, the author assumes that government have that much fund to invest on such unnecessary idea, he forget to think about other problems in society, there is no clear evidence showing the society is fully developed and government should invest money on entertainment projects.
In summary, the author decision is rife with flaws and holes that seemingly impugn its validity. Afterall the author's decision is not wrong, but as long as it rational, His ought to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors and must submit more conclusive evidence to make the argument wise and profitable. Without doing this, the conclusion is insubstantial & open to debate.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 411 350
No. of Characters: 2048 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.503 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.983 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.514 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 144 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 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: 25.688 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.032 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.379 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.649 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.137 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 472, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... riverside recreational facilities. The authors conclusion about the cleaning river and...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ical and fruitful at first glance. The author make valid assumptions that migh...
^^^
Line 5, column 12, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'makes'.
Suggestion: makes
...uitful at first glance. The author make valid assumptions that might be true if...
^^^^
Line 13, column 159, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: What
... government is planing something else ? what if Government is planing to clean the r...
^^^^
Line 17, column 104, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'forgets'.
Suggestion: forgets
... to invest on such unnecessary idea, he forget to think about other problems in societ...
^^^^^^
Line 21, column 98, Rule ID: AFTERALL[1]
Message: Did you mean 'after all'?
Suggestion: After all
...les that seemingly impugn its validity. Afterall the authors decision is not wrong, but ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2117.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 411.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15085158151 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61858649079 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476885644769 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 648.0 705.55239521 92% => 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: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.8765535391 57.8364921388 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.529411765 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1764705882 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05882352941 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183476288264 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0629332556837 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0735067159338 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0805743442941 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0823680825999 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.