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 i

Essay topics:

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.

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

The author’s proposal that Mason city government should increase the budget to riverside recreational facilities is unsound. The prediction that the use of the river for water sports will certainly enhance if it is cleaned is not entirely logically cogent, because it is based on dubious inferences and questionable assumptions, which requires more information to prove they are valid and reliable.

It is stated that surveys proved that water sports are the favorite amusement activities of mason residents. However, we do not know the scope and the sample size of these surveys. Therefore, they could be unreliable and not express accurately resident’s recreational activities preference. Furthermore, these surveys could be done during the time of an aquatic sport event which could lead to an overestimated result about resident’s preference or they could offered just water sports as options to answer to questions.

According to the argument, Mason River is rarely used for these activities which can infer that residents perform them during vacations or outside the city. On the other hand, the author implies that river pollution and bad odor are the cause for its limited use. It is also stated that the city budget to this cause is very low but it is not stated how much is invested in these recreational facilities per year.

The writer of the argument asserts that resident’s complaint about water’s quality and smell are related to pollution, hence it is necessary to clean up the river. But this could not be true, since laboratory tests are required to confirm the water’s quality and the smell could be a result of a natural phenomenon due to algae. Therefore, river clean up would not have a significant impact on river’s facilities usage. Moreover, it is not stated how many residents complained about it which could be just a small sample of residents, thus, not representing the overall thoughts of population.

Although it is advantageous for everybody having a clean river with updated sport facilities around, the author’s argument does not justify increasing the budget.

Votes
Average: 5.8 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 269, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'activities'' or 'activity's'?
Suggestion: activities'; activity's
...ress accurately resident’s recreational activities preference. Furthermore, these surveys ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 461, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'offer'
Suggestion: offer
...out resident’s preference or they could offered just water sports as options to answer ...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, so, therefore, thus, on the other hand

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1786.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 339.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26843657817 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86947120615 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.530973451327 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 561.6 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3692248776 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.571428571 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2142857143 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.57142857143 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.251102336359 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0900490189115 0.0743258471296 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0627890842967 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138333892578 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0662136875461 0.0628817314937 105% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.25 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 339 350
No. of Characters: 1724 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.291 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.086 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.728 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.214 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.825 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.607 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5