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 writer concludes that the city government should devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities. The author assumes that use of river for water sports is sure to increase because, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. However the conclusion relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence.
Firstly, author cities surveys of city resident's and claims that city resident love water sports. However, the scope and validation of survey is not clear. For example, the survey could have asked people if they prefer using river for water sports or would like to see hydropelectric damn built, which might have tempted resident to choose water sports as an option. Residents whose survey was taken might not represent whole city and are resident staying near river side. Survey could have been 10 pages long with only two questions on water sports. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid and reliable, it cannot be used to effectively support author's assumption.
In addition, author assumes that residents currently do not use river water for swimming, boating and fishing because it is polluted and smelly. Although, it is mentioned that for years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of water it cannot be identified upto what level water was polluted. Hence, we cannot determine exact relatinoship between lack of river use and current state of the river. Author could have strengthen his/her argument by taking a survey of wide range of resident by asking them why they currently do not use the river. Building upon this assumption, author concludes that cleaning up of river would increase use of river for water sports. Unless the reason behind not using river currrently is not known, one cannot come to this conclusion.
According to the author, reason behind not using river for sports currently is smell and polluted water. But reason for this smell and pollution is not stated. Smell might come from a natural phenomenon or bacteria that surrounds river also, there are some water bodies that emit a strong smell of sulphur due to geographical location. If this is the reason, it cannot be solved by cleaning up the river. Regardless of whether river clean up will solve the pollution and smell problem. It's impact on river usage is still unknown because author does not show effective connection between river usage and pollution.
In the conclusion, this argument depends on certain simplified assumptions about cleaning up river will increase river usage for water sports and hence city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities. The author could have strengthen the argument by discussing other factors beyond clean up of river and by implimenting more reliable surveys before concluding that, the city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 485 350
No. of Characters: 2469 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.693 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.091 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.484 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.087 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.929 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.478 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.344 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 75, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... government should devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 14, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...nounced plans to clean up Mason River. However the conclusion relies on assumption for...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 132, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ports. However, the scope and validation of survey is not clear. For example, the...
^^^
Line 7, column 79, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to water'
Suggestion: to water
...h might have tempted resident to choose water sports as an option. Residents whose su...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 122, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t cannot be used to effectively support authors assumption. In addition, author ass...
^^^^^^^
Line 12, column 133, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ating and fishing because it is polluted and smelly. Although, it is mentioned th...
^^^
Line 14, column 137, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ween lack of river use and current state of the river. Author could have strength...
^^^
Line 15, column 33, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
...state of the river. Author could have strengthen his/her argument by taking a survey of ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 20, column 139, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... river also, there are some water bodies that emit a strong smell of sulphur due ...
^^^
Line 26, column 67, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ld for that reason devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational ...
^^^^
Line 27, column 23, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
...onal facilities. The author could have strengthen the argument by discussing other factor...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 28, column 85, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...should for that reason devote more money in this years budget to riverside recrea...
^^^
Line 29, column 4, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... for that reason devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, so, still, then, for example, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2561.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 484.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29132231405 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56005242475 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45041322314 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 775.8 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3295241727 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.347826087 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0434782609 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.82608695652 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 24.0 5.15768463074 465% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 13.0 5.25449101796 247% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.293829589016 0.218282227539 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0999862634398 0.0743258471296 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0708831867746 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0999131724479 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0641273695264 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.