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.
In the author's argument, it is stated that to increase the use of the Mason river for riverside recreational activities, the city government should devote more money in this year's budget. The author draws this conclusion by citing the surveys where Mason city residents rank water sports among their favorite recreational activities and also the complaints from residents about the quality and smell of the river's water. However, the author's assertion as it currently stands, rests on three unwarranted assumptions.
First of all, the argument presumes, with no justification that the residents of mason city who rank water sport among their favorite recreational activities, would also participate in them. However, this may not be the case. Perhaps, they only prefer being speculators of the sports and not participants. These water sports may require experts to participate in them, and these residents may just prefer cheering others up during their leisure time. Maybe the residents only prefer to watch these sports on televisions and not actually be present where the sport is happpening. Even if these residents want to participate in these sports, they might be unable to because the size of the mason river may be too small for these recreational activities and not even because of the smell and quality of the river's water. Hence, if any of the above scenerios is true, then the argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, the author readily assumes that the complaints received about the quality and smell of the water is a representative of all the city's residents. It is possible that only 2 out of 200 residents in Mason city gave complaints about the river's quality. Hence, the author makes a generalization from limited survey. Maybe the river's quality is not as bad as they make it look. Even if the complaints are true and without bias, the residents may have complained just because the smell makes them uncomfortable and not because they would want the river to be used for water sports. Therefore, if any of the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
Finally, it is stated that cleaning up Mason river, would increase its use for water sports. It could be that the smell of the water is being caused by the wastes from a nearby factory that isn't even aware of the damage it has been causing. So cleaning up the river does not mean that the source of the smell and quality deterioration is stopped. Increasing the budget for riverside recreational facilities, would be like pouring water on stone, that is, it would be a waste of effort. Perhaps the smell is even caused by a natural effect which may not have a solution and would just be better as being abandoned. So, until there is evidence about the source of the river's smell and pollution, the argument is flawed.
In conclusion, the author's argument as it stands, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. For the argument to be viable, it is required that additional evidence, perhaps in form of a more systematic research study be provided to fully evaluate the argument to increase the use of mason river for water sports.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 534 350
No. of Characters: 2580 1500
No. of Different Words: 203 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.807 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.831 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.655 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.4 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.33 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.33 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 8, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
In the authors argument, it is stated that to increase...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 435, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...smell of the rivers water. However, the authors assertion as it currently stands, rests...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 190, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...y the wastes from a nearby factory that isnt even aware of the damage it has been ca...
^^^^
Line 4, column 666, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'rivers'' or 'river's'?
Suggestion: rivers'; river's
...ere is evidence about the source of the rivers smell and pollution, the argument is fl...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...argument is flawed. In conclusion, the authors argument as it stands, is considerably ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, hence, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2635.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 533.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94371482176 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72115278502 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.399624765478 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 832.5 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.4406589667 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.791666667 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2083333333 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.375 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.29880992351 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0907908108559 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0990340815011 0.0701772020484 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194394447799 0.128457276422 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105922406473 0.0628817314937 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.54 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.