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.
The budgeting department of the city government believes that cleaning the Mason River and building water sports facilities will increase the uses of the river from citizens in the Mason City because they have been receiving complaints about the water quality from local residents. Ostensibly, increasing amount of money devoted to the Mason River would lead to more uses from the citizens. However, before the plan is implemented, the budgeting department of the city government needs to address some questions about its possible flaws.
First of all, the decision-maker needs to ask how many percents of the residents have complained about the quality of the water of the Mason River. If the majority of the residents actually think that the water quality is pleasant, there might be no real need to clean the river. To figure out if the cleaning is necessary, one thing the government can do is to compare the river water quality parameters with the main rivers in other cities. If the quality of water river does not show a significant difference with other cities' river, the cleaning cost could possibly be saved. The government can also implement a survey to all citizens about their opinion on the water quality, therefore it would be easy to figure out if the complaints about river water and its smell are representative enough.
Furthermore, the author assumes that the people in the city who enjoy water sports would love to use Mason River as the site for sports activities. However, there is no evidence to show that they will certainly prefer the river other than indoor pools for swimming, or lakes nearby for fishing. To make sure the money that will be devoted to improving the riverside environment would literally facilitate the use of the river, the budgeting department of the city government needs to administrate a survey on people's favorite places for water sports. If there is a clear preference towards Mason River, it would be more convincing that spending money on building Mason River for sports use is a good spend of the government's budgets.
Finally, the decision-maker assumes that the current riverside recreational facilities are not heavily used by the residents because in the past little money was spent to maintain them. However, the budgeting department of the city government needs to figure out if there is any other reason that little money was devoted to facility maintaining, for example, they could be in good condition and there was no necessity to repair or maintain them. There could be other reasons that people did not enjoy using them, for example, the location of the Mason River is too far away or the river-surrounding environment is not accessible enough for families with kids or elderly people. The city government should investigate the real reason why the current facilities are not widely used by residents and develop budgeting plan accordingly.
In conclusion, there are many questions the city government needs to answer before using this plan from the budgeting department. They need to look carefully at the needed pieces of evidence of the percentage of complaining residents, the preference of water sports location and the reason for low past budgeting on current recreational facilities.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 535 350
No. of Characters: 2682 1500
No. of Different Words: 210 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.809 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.013 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.706 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.722 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.047 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.833 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.393 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.606 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.159 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 524, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'cities'' or 'city's'?
Suggestion: cities'; city's
...how a significant difference with other cities river, the cleaning cost could possibly...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 556, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'could'.
Suggestion: could
...h other cities river, the cleaning cost could possibly be saved. The government can also imple...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, look, so, therefore, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2735.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 535.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11214953271 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80937282943 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77114009009 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.403738317757 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 868.5 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 50.1968962692 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.944444444 119.503703932 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.7222222222 23.324526521 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.33333333333 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.347976137489 0.218282227539 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130156307191 0.0743258471296 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0649570989551 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.21584274042 0.128457276422 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.080935021858 0.0628817314937 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.3550499002 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.95 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => 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.