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 hydroelectric 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 up to what level water was polluted. Hence, we cannot determine exact relationship between lack of river use and current state of the river. Author could have strengthened 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 currently 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. Its 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 strengthened the argument by discussing other factors beyond clean-up of river and by implementing 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: 484 350
No. of Characters: 2472 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.69 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.107 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.503 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.043 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.903 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.478 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.54 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 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 340, 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 213, 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 9, column 500, 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 ...
^^^^
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: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2534.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 483.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24637681159 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68799114503 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60191039752 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.447204968944 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 777.6 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.1429654242 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.173913043 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.82608695652 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
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: 0.294057780118 0.218282227539 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101195746099 0.0743258471296 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0698800426989 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188376307624 0.128457276422 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0651333241076 0.0628817314937 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => 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: 13.17 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => 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?
---------------------
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.