This argument attempts to chronologically place the events of the town in a way to conclude that more money needs to be allocated into the city's budget for riverside recreational facilities. After further inspection, one will find that this conclusion is based on many stated and unstated assumptions about the survey, the city and the recreational facilties. This leads the argument to be very superfluous once its assumptions are shown to be unwarranted, as will be done below.
To begin, the argument states that 'surveys' show that water sports are favored by Mason City residents, yet there in no explanation of the type of surveys, quantity of residents surveyed or the validity of results. The following statement in the argument says that the city is rarely used for such activites, which brings the reader to question how residents could rank water sports as their favorite if they aren't found to be engaging in them in their place of residence. Both assumptions imply a need for sports that is simply not qualified by any strong data.
Furthermore, the portion in regard to the city's lack of monetary support of the riverside's recreational facilites seems to assume that the city park department does not maintain these facilities well, which leads to low usage. However, it could very well be that these facilities are not used, which has led to its lack of use. The next part mentions that poor quality of water could also be a major factor that leads both people to not use the facilities, and the city to not put more money into recreational use of the water.
Even though the argument mentions that the state has announced plans to clean the river, there is no timeline drawn. The argument assumes that the cleaning will be done in the same year they are asking for more money to be put into riverside facilities. It could make sense for money to be put in following the year the river is actually clean, but even then the assumption that 'use of the river for water sports is sure to increase' is not a substantial claim that can be made given that there is no record or survey that can back up that cleaning the river would lead to any more people wanting to use the river for water sports, if those are even among their favorite recreational acivities.
This argument was filled with many assumptions that seem reasonable at first glance, yet in reality do not give a picture of true data from a reasonable sample of the city, nor does it address the discrepencies in correlations made. Having proved the assumptions unwarranted, the argument is not able to hold much weight.
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 452 350
No. of Characters: 2106 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.611 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.659 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.577 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 120 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.286 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.909 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.429 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.355 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.355 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 409, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
... water sports as their favorite if they arent found to be engaging in them in their p...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, then, well, in regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1741.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 373.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.66756032172 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51072063999 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514745308311 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 552.6 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => 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: 33.0 22.8473053892 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 98.7442644009 57.8364921388 171% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.272727273 119.503703932 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.9090909091 23.324526521 145% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.45454545455 5.70786347227 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.300011537004 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102845216877 0.0743258471296 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0866548751194 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164721203579 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110561934904 0.0628817314937 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.44 48.3550499002 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.4 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.1389221557 136% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.