The author argues here that the state’s plan to clean up Mason River would increase the use of the river for water sports thus, I generally disagree with the author’s opinion and despite the facts provided by the author, the argument contains a number of logical loopholes which succeed in making the argument sound unconvincing.
Firstly this is merely an assumption made by the author, when he claims that if the river is in a better condition then the residents will use it for riverside recreational activities. There is a possibility that the river may be too shallow or would have a very rapid flow thus making it unsuitable for fishing and swimming respectively. Thus the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated that the river was appropriate for all the recreational activities.
Secondly the author readily claims that as the residents have been complaining about the quality of the river’s water and the water’s smell, so if the state cleans the river they will begin using it for recreational purposes. But maybe the citizens were complaining just with the desire to get the the river clean as it’s a part of the city where they live. And having a polluted water body isn’t great for any city as well as it’s residents as it may cause many problems for an example widespread of a disease. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it shows no clear correlation between the residents demand and their interest to use the river for water sports.
Lastly, the author cites that the state should increase the money devoted to riverside activities in the activity as water sports are the favorite recreational activity. However, it could be that the residents prefer to go to some other river as they want to spend some time away from the city. So they can do other activities or they generally go for water sports on the weekends and thus want to try water sports at other neighboring rivers. Thus there is a good chance that even if the state improves the water sports at the Mason river people may not still use it.
In conclusion the author’s argument is unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it further the author must provide some clear and concrete evidence perhaps by way of reliable and detailed analysis. He should look into if the river is suitable for water sports, are the residents willing to use it for recreational purposes and whether the residents will begin using it once it is clean and has better water sports facilities.
Essay evaluation report
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: 15 15
No. of Words: 433 350
No. of Characters: 2024 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.562 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.674 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.527 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.867 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.688 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.867 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.39 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.614 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 340, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... for fishing and swimming respectively. Thus the argument would have been much more...
^^^^
Line 3, column 357, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...swimming respectively. Thus the argument would have been much more convincing if ...
^^
Line 5, column 305, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...complaining just with the desire to get the the river clean as it's a part of the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 305, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...complaining just with the desire to get the the river clean as it's a part of the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 446, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ter sports at other neighboring rivers. Thus there is a good chance that even if the...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, look, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, well, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2105.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 432.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 4.87268518519 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55901411391 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71597824945 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474537037037 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 665.1 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 60.4119193537 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.333333333 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.8 23.324526521 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.33333333333 5.70786347227 146% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.270669797918 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0954793049251 0.0743258471296 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0470990153896 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150494322763 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0333077627983 0.0628817314937 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.3550499002 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.56 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.