In surveys Mason city residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, fising) among their favorite recreational activities. The mason river flowing through this city is rarely used for these pursuits, however and the city devotes less of its budget to maintaining the recreational facilities
For years there have been complaints from residence 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.
The author recommended the higher investment to riverside facilities since he claimed the relevant surveys have shown that the residents value <span class="hiddenGrammarError" pre="value "></span>the water sports most. Also, the action to modify the facilities should also be taken, to satisfy the residents’ increasing interest in water sports because of the plan to clean the river. But in fact, the evidence the author provided is not tenable enough to persuade me that it is a necessity to invest more money to the riverside facilities.
Above all, the author has not provided enough information about the surveys, which he utilized to show people’s preference to water sports, so the data remain unreliable. He did not indict the exact activities the subjects could choose from, maybe the options were just minuscule and lack prevailing recreational activities such as watching movies and exercising. If such popular activities were given, maybe the favorite one would be no longer the water sports. Also, I doubt whether the interviewees can represent the general thought of the whole city, given that the distribution and quantity of them are unknown. If the researchers deliberately interview people living near the river, the love for the water sports would be extremely high compared to people in other regions, since such activities are more accessible for them. In addition, it would be possible that the quantity is too small to depict the general picture of the residents’ favorite option. Because the surveys are not convincing, the author cannot utilize their conclusions to support his suggestion that the government should pay more on water-sports facilities.
Secondly, although the planning has been made to improve the environment of the river, this has little relevance to the author’s advice that the riverside facilities should also be invested. The author asserted that the use of such facilities would be increased after the river is cleaned. But in fact, no evidence has shown that many residents prevent from using these facilities because of the smelling and the poor quality of the river. so even if the environment was improved, they would still not choose to use them as well. It is true that some residents compliant about the awful environment of the river, but they may all be on the purpose of the health instead of the eagerness to use the facilities near the river.
Finally, even though the facilities alongside the river would be much more popular, there are no signals indicating the current facilities need improvement and more investment. Maybe the quantity and quality of them are enough to satisfy the potential users’ needs in the future. So if true, it would be a great waste to spend money on these riverside recreational facilities.
In summary, the author’s advice for the government is not convincing, since the facts and assumptions he provided fail to state its contribution to all residents in Mason city. In order to persuade the governor to accept it, the author should provide more accurate backgrounds of the surveys should been provided or the more subjective survey should be conducted to show citizens’ chose. Besides, the current condition of the facilities should be observed to clarify whether they need to improve.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 533 350
No. of Characters: 2684 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.805 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.036 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.713 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 192 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.65 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.009 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.555 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.166 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 446, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: So
...ling and the poor quality of the river. so even if the environment was improved, t...
^^
Line 13, column 342, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this riverside' or 'these riversides'?
Suggestion: this riverside; these riversides
...ould be a great waste to spend money on these riverside recreational facilities. In summar...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 305, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[2]
Message: Did you mean 'have been' or 'be'?
Suggestion: have been; be
...urate backgrounds of the surveys should been provided or the more subjective survey ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, well, in addition, in fact, in summary, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2837.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 530.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35283018868 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79809637944 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22431190415 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466037735849 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 886.5 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4856037376 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.095238095 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2380952381 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.122803077474 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0419325259983 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0304624883481 0.0701772020484 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0723400988382 0.128457276422 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0221170550848 0.0628817314937 35% => 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: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.