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.
In the given argumenet author presses for an increase in the annual budget for maintaining riverside recreational facilities. The argument draws its strength from a survery and indeed looks convincing at the first glance. On closer analysis it appears that although the argument is cogent it reqires further empharical and survey data to vindicate it's stand.
As the author reveals about the city dwellers, citing a survey, that water sports are some of their most favourite form of games, hence it is very likely that these people might have already availed other sources/water parks to participate in the said sport activities. Hence riverside beds of the Mayson river may not be a concern for these people altogether. A further survey is suggested in getting the opinion of the people, if they will be willing to change over to the riverside if indeed it is cleaned.
Further, a cleansed water is effectively a recycled water. Typically a polluted water which has a cheristeristic of giving foul smell on the city sidelines most plausibly acquires such a smell because of contamination from drainage lines. Such a notority may prevent city dewellers from using this water for anything other than irrigation of plants. Also people may find it offending to recycle such polluted water and rebrand it as clean and usable.
The arguments says that the river will be cleansed but gives no information on sustaining such cleanliness and sources of the pollution. What if some industry or a factory is mixing up its drainage with the river or what if the city sewage lines are leaking into the river? Even after cleaning the river can get polluted again if no action is taken on the sources.
There is also a possiblity of the river containing presence certain naturally occuring pollutants like sulphides, flourides which may decolour and make the water to smell foul. In this case again the cleaning of the river may have no effect on the quality of water.
The arguments overall seems plausible but lacks the concreteness desired to make a final conclusion on the issue. It is suggested that empherical data be collected and surveys be done before projecting the viewpoint.
Sentence: In the given argumenet author presses for an increase in the annual budget for maintaining riverside recreational facilities.
Error: argumenet Suggestion: argument
Sentence: The argument draws its strength from a survery and indeed looks convincing at the first glance.
Error: survery Suggestion: survey
Sentence: On closer analysis it appears that although the argument is cogent it reqires further empharical and survey data to vindicate it's stand.
Error: empharical Suggestion: empirical
Error: reqires Suggestion: requires
Sentence: Typically a polluted water which has a cheristeristic of giving foul smell on the city sidelines most plausibly acquires such a smell because of contamination from drainage lines.
Error: cheristeristic Suggestion: characteristic
Sentence: Such a notority may prevent city dewellers from using this water for anything other than irrigation of plants.
Error: dewellers Suggestion: dwellers
Error: notority Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Also people may find it offending to recycle such polluted water and rebrand it as clean and usable.
Error: rebrand Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: There is also a possiblity of the river containing presence certain naturally occuring pollutants like sulphides, flourides which may decolour and make the water to smell foul.
Error: occuring Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: flourides Suggestion: flourishes
Error: possiblity Suggestion: possibility
Sentence: It is suggested that empherical data be collected and surveys be done before projecting the viewpoint.
Error: empherical Suggestion: No alternate word
--------------------
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
argument 4 -- not OK
--------------------
flaws:
Need to analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell.
condition 2:
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.
condition 3:
In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities.
The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
then here goes the argument:
argument 1:
People who complain may be not sports fans.
argument 2:
Maybe the river is so turbulent, which is not suitable for sports.
argument 3:
If more money are put on water sports, other favorite recreational activities would be no money.
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 13 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 364 350
No. of Characters: 1782 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.368 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.896 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.634 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.412 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.949 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.628 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.077 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5