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 this piece, the author concludes that riverside recreational facilities should receive an increased share in Mason City's budget this year due to an impending increase in use of Mason River for recreational activities. To support this conclusion, the author states that the city's residents are avid fans of various forms of water sports. As additional evidence that now is the proper time to invest specifically in riverside recreational facilities, the author notes a recent plan to clean up the Mason River to improve its water quality and smell. However, the author's argument, as it stands n...
Subscribe as testbig VIP readers and get unlimited access to essays on the top list.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 531 350
No. of Characters: 2855 1500
No. of Different Words: 243 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.8 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.377 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.839 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 217 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 165 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 124 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 91 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.947 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.808 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 566, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s water quality and smell. However, the authors argument, as it stands now, is based on...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 297, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...servation efforts. In fact, because the authors suggestion coincides with the announcem...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 624, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...vital department functions, even if the authors argument about increased desire for wat...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 27, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...udget plans. In its current form, the authors argument is considerably flawed due to ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 111, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to its dependence on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author could provide...
^^
Line 5, column 213, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he three issues above, perhaps through a systematic research study of water sport...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, while, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2910.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 531.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4802259887 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80035803286 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88959102834 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455743879473 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 911.7 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.9976107676 57.8364921388 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.157894737 119.503703932 128% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.9473684211 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52631578947 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.313428451123 0.218282227539 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10951971947 0.0743258471296 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.072582624306 0.0701772020484 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191799251348 0.128457276422 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0713166516397 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.4 14.3799401198 128% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.8 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 98.500998004 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => 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.