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 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 argument states that the Mason City should increase the money to clean up the Mason River and make more water recreational activities. However, to make this claim more convincing, the author should elaborate the assumption to strengthen the article.
The survey of the argument says many residents like water sports as their recreational activities. However, the author didn't indicate that who makes this survey and where is the survey from. It might be only one hundred people investigated in that survey to support the author's claim or the company of water activities' facilities hired people to write the surveys to support the claim. If the above assumption is true, the survey will not useful to support the government to increase the money to elaborate water activities.
Even if the survey is credibly and is not doubtful absolutely. The smell might not from the Mason River so complaints from residents might not be true. The smell might from the ditch or the garbage, thrown by residents, has the stinky smell. Those assumptions all need to be support to make the claim more convincing that the author needs to elaborate more evidence to strength the arguments such as the government should let the professional to see if the smell is truely from the river, also hired the chemical professional to search the data of the river to see if the data is in standard or not. If the data is out of the standard, the government must increases the money to improve the river. By contrast, if the data is in the standard and the smell is not from the river that the government won't increase the money to improve the river.
Therefore, the recreational activities must spend a lot of money to elaborate, also the costs of maintaining facilities still needs myriads of money that the city should discuss and make the right decision. Since the city needs to evaluate whether the activity on the Mason River would increase their visitors or not, also, the city needs to consider whether the river will be frozen or not. If the Mason River always frozen during the winter, the money to held recreational facilities may not useful.
The author's perspective may be plausible. None of the assumptions, however, necessarily entails of the conclusion. Therefore, the author needs to address the above assumptions to reinforce the claim to make the article more convincing.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 402 350
No. of Characters: 1931 1500
No. of Different Words: 144 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.478 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.803 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.589 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 120 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.897 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.358 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.358 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.154 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 119, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...ational activities. However, the author didnt indicate that who makes this survey and...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ational facilities may not useful. The authors perspective may be plausible. None of t...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, so, still, then, therefore, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1971.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 400.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9275 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.472135955 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67170240671 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.39 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 613.8 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.1009193156 57.8364921388 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.5 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2222222222 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.27777777778 5.70786347227 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.196466673843 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0687060360562 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0717584095625 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115724184079 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0752033687812 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.57 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.