Author states that devoting more money by city government to increase riverside recreational facilities will increase the use of river for recreational activities. The argument made by author is based on the evidence regarding complaint from residents about poor quality water & river’s smell and the survey results of water sports to be the favorite recreational activities among city residents. The argument is flawed due to not sufficient evidence provided to justify the argument, which I will be discussing in detail in the subsequent paragraphs.
Firstly, assumption about the favorite sports being the one which residents actually play is a bit of concern. It might be possible that city residents are not actively involved in the sports and they are just fascinated with the sport (looking at it from outside), but not playing it. I believe author should provide evidence regarding the residents’ sports inclination to play the sports will help in evaluating the argument.
Secondly, the unstated assumption of cleaning up the river will increase the use of water sports in the city is flawed. It might be possible that the river’s high current flow is not suitable for water sports activities and might lead to unfortunate accidents. To justify this evidence, we must look it from the broader perspective, collecting information about the kind of river flow required for water sports, infrastructure and the training professionals to train the residents, which might lead to increase the use of river for water sports.
Thirdly, there is no mention about the age profile of the city residents in the argument provided by author. There might the possibility that the population of old age people in on the higher side in the city and mid aged students/people might be having free time due to hectic study/work schedule. Author must find the information about the lifestyle of the city residents and what they really like during their leisure time. If the above information is provided, the argument can be evaluated properly with highlighting the hidden assumptions.
Concluding my analysis, I find the author’s argument flawed due to not sufficient evidences are not provided to justify the statement. If the required evidences (highlighted in above three paragraphs) are provided along with other required information also (in a systematic manner), the argument can be evaluated properly.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 383 350
No. of Characters: 1976 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.424 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.159 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.786 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.533 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.65 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.389 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.45 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.12 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 546, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ease the use of river for water sports. Thirdly, there is no mention about the a...
^^^
Line 6, column 256, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a systematic manner" with adverb for "systematic"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ng with other required information also in a systematic manner, the argument can be evaluated properly...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, if, look, really, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2027.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32020997375 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95079133208 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.472440944882 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 639.0 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.1284768832 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.133333333 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.245595892714 0.218282227539 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0960628289907 0.0743258471296 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0773773147447 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142236865709 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0846219105576 0.0628817314937 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
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.