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 author suggests that improvement of the riversider water quality will aid in inviting more visitors for water sports on the lake, such as swimming, boating, fishing etc., and the City Council ought to subscribe aggressively to the project of the water quality enhancement. This argument may sound reasonable and well-grounded, but it is replete with holes and incorrect assumptions underlied. Therefore, it does not have strong enough to lead to increased funding.
Citing report presents that increased aesthetic views and quality in the lake will cause more residents in Mason City to take part in water recreational activities there. However, it may not have something to do with water quality that people prefer to enjoy water sports; instead, they may not bother water condition for the sports as greatly as they do with traffic condition, parking lots to enter the lake. If the council expends budget to ameliorate the lake's quality but not provides any positive returns in the number of visitors, this would be a waste of funds that otherwise could have wisely allocated and brought off positive consequences. Therefore, the council should be more circumspect to denote the most consequential part to develop, maximising the benefit of the funding.
Another assumption that the author makes is that cleaning the lake would engender more customers for water sprots facilities. However, recovering the water quality is a time-spending process which may span more than a couple of years. While the lake is being restored, none of customers would be able to relic the water games and recreations. Furthermore, better quality of water may render visitors hesitant to use the facilities, as they can be more cautious of environmental protection. It is for sure that more use of activities on the lake would contaminate the water and reduce its quality. Therefore, enhancement of water quality may not generate neither more visitors nor more participants to the water entertaining facilities.
A close examinations in the author's argument reveals that the cleasing initiative for the lake does not have enough justification to attracting the council's funding. Although the argument certainly points out that increased water quality can be positively related to the preferance of potential visitors, it needs to provide a solid evidence on a fundamental drive of people's visiting the lake and try to resolve any arising complaints for the effective development for water sports facilities.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Therefore, the council should be more circumspect to denote the most consequential part to develop, maximising the benefit of the funding.
Error: maximising Suggestion: maximizing
Sentence: Another assumption that the author makes is that cleaning the lake would engender more customers for water sprots facilities.
Error: sprots Suggestion: sports
Sentence: A close examinations in the author's argument reveals that the cleasing initiative for the lake does not have enough justification to attracting the council's funding.
Error: cleasing Suggestion: clearing
Sentence: Although the argument certainly points out that increased water quality can be positively related to the preferance of potential visitors, it needs to provide a solid evidence on a fundamental drive of people's visiting the lake and try to resolve any arising complaints for the effective development for water sports facilities.
Error: preferance Suggestion: preference
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 395 350
No. of Characters: 2064 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.458 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.225 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.842 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.371 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.397 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.572 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 9, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'examination'?
Suggestion: examination
...ter entertaining facilities. A close examinations in the authors argument reveals that th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 29, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ilities. A close examinations in the authors argument reveals that the cleasing init...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, may, so, therefore, well, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2107.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 395.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33417721519 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93367368251 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498734177215 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 674.1 705.55239521 96% => 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: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.3950755853 57.8364921388 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.466666667 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3333333333 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73333333333 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => 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: 0.144755442361 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0526860110105 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534357087341 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0983771684813 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0277903599093 0.0628817314937 44% => 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: 16.8 14.3799401198 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.44 8.32208582834 113% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => 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.