The argument claims that Mason cirty residents enjoy water sports, but do not use the local river for recreation, and postulates that sanity reasons may have a role play-- therefore, cleaning up the river should correct the disuse. It implicitly, and possibly incorrectlty assumes it relies on is that the complaints about the water quality are the (sole) reason that people do not use the river for recreational activities. The trite, but prudent remark that correlation does not imply causation, is of relevance here. It is intuitive to assume that sanitary reasons might put people off from using facilities. However, it may be the case that they contribute only minorly to people not using the river. There may be other reasons, that still persist. The current may be too strong for safe use, or the river may be rocky, or there might be sharks lurking in the river, or the river may simply be seen as holy and pious. In such a case, cleaning up the river is not going to help much, unless the other issues are also dealt with. A more appropriate course of action to increase the use of river for water sports, would be survey enquiring the reasons explicitly.
Another issue with the argument is that of proper information capaigns. If the government silently cleans up the river and sets up facilities, but nobody learns about or notices it (apart from the lack of smell), they'll continue, simply due to inertia, to abstain from using the river. It is thus important for the city government to advertise its efforts to clean up the river, through newspapers, television channels, posters, etc.
Should the government be responsible for setting up recreational facilities? It depends upon the priorities of the people who elected the government. Surely, some might argue, that the taxpayer ought not to be responsible for setting up facilities which offer luxuries. Perhaps, a more diplomatic route would be to allow commercial agencies to set them up. They would ultimately be funded by the people who actually are interested in water sports. The fraction of people who do not enjoy riverside activities, after all, should not be asked to fund them, it could be argued. Therefore, it is also not clear if the funds to set up riverside facilities should come from the government budget at all. The best way may be to simply go commercial.
Whether it is in public interest for riverside facilities to develop, is another debatable point. Even if people enjoy watersports, there might be reasons it would not be wise to create recreational facilities in the particular area. Perhaps there is a school nearby, and a large crowd visiting the place would put children at risk. There might be a hospital requiring peace and quiet, instead of the hustle and bustle of a tourist destination. The people of the city in general might prefer that their city remain a rustic little place, not a tourist hotspot. Again, the cultural background is rel
These were a few issues I could identify with the argument.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 512 350
No. of Characters: 2426 1500
No. of Different Words: 246 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.757 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.738 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.542 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.963 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.448 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.519 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.268 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.463 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 212, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they'll
...otices it apart from the lack of smell, theyll continue, simply due to inertia, to abs...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus, after all, apart from, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2502.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 511.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89628180039 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65265180415 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.499021526419 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 780.3 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => 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: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.67365269461 538% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.6646279967 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.2307692308 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6538461538 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.84615384615 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
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: 0.145430743687 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0414631300569 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0531263400809 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0780384075008 0.128457276422 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0444535017289 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.