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.
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.
Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river's water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.
A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased funding.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 541 350
No. of Characters: 2618 1500
No. of Different Words: 237 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.823 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.839 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.594 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.542 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.018 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.583 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.525 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.147 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
...ffectively back the authors argument Additionally the author implies that residents do no...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, may, so, then, thus, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2623.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 540.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85740740741 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82057051367 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57444108761 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.412962962963 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 851.4 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 19.7664670659 5% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 540.0 22.8473053892 2364% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 57.8364921388 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 2623.0 119.503703932 2195% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 540.0 23.324526521 2315% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 71.0 5.70786347227 1244% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 0.0 6.88822355289 0% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.28790212565 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.28790212565 0.0743258471296 387% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0701772020484 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183716628254 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0579358550538 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 271.5 14.3799401198 1888% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -476.62 48.3550499002 -986% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 7.1628742515 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 213.9 12.197005988 1754% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 12.39 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 33.46 8.32208582834 402% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 54.0 12.3882235529 436% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 218.0 11.1389221557 1957% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 218.0 11.9071856287 1831% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.