The author of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project.
For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior. Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague. While water sports may be among the residents' favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Are they willing to sacrifice the municipal golf course for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities.
Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river? The answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons our residents use or do not use the river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in? These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget.
Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river. We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new buildings fall into dilapidation while the state drags the river clean-up.
Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from. The current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on where it will come from.
Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 12 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 31 15
No. of Words: 506 350
No. of Characters: 2565 1500
No. of Different Words: 264 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.743 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.069 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.572 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.323 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.738 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.355 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.231 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.459 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.04 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, then, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 55.5748502994 40% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1295.0 2260.96107784 57% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 260.0 441.139720559 59% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98076923077 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.56307096286 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68873114088 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 204.123752495 62% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.484615384615 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 412.2 705.55239521 58% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 19.7664670659 40% => 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: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 50.7073404449 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.875 119.503703932 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.5 23.324526521 139% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.70786347227 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265132775882 0.218282227539 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.143027392573 0.0743258471296 192% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0324108509525 0.0701772020484 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173861627583 0.128457276422 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0185714747339 0.0628817314937 30% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 14.3799401198 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.0 48.3550499002 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.2 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 45.0 98.500998004 46% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => 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.