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.
In this argument, the author claims that the city government should appropriate more budget to riverside recreational facilities this year to accommodate increasing water sports population. However, the author's contention contains groundless asumptions. This essay will show these unwarranted assumptions with possible alternative explanations.
To begin with, the author assumes that Mason City people's demand on water sports is high because they replied the survey as they prefer water sports. However, this might not be true because people's respondances and their actual behaviors can be disparate. It is possible that respondants prefer water sports because they cannot enjoy water sports frequently, and they are bored of commonplace activities. Furthermore, because information about survey respondants are not provided, it could be a case that the number of responded people are not sufficient or the respondant group is biased. For these reasons, the assumption that the Mason City residents' preference on water sports might not be true.
Secondly, the author presumes more assumption that use of river for water sports should increase, because Mason River should be cleaned. However, this assumption is not guarranted. For instance, Mason City people might prefer to enjoy water sports in swimming pool or outside of the city, other than the riverside. In this case, cleaning of the riverside might not affect the population using riverside. In addition, it is possible that even if the city announced to clean up Mason River, the plan might not be conducted, and use of the river thus might not increase. For these reasons, the assumption that the use or the river for water sports should be increase is groundless.
Finally, the author assumes that the cleaning of the river would be finished in this year, and therefore the budget of this year should be increased. However, this assumption might not be true. For instance, it is possible cleaning of the river can be take for ten years because the water quality is so bad. In this case, the use of money for the riverside recreational facilities in this year might be useless. Furthermore, it is possible that the plan nullified. Accordingly, the author's assumption that the cleaning of the riverside would be successed in this year is not fully justified and potentially harm the author's claim.
In conclusoin, the author's argument contains several unwarranted assumptions and these assumptions might harm the author's contention, so further evidence should be provided to correctly assess the argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 404 350
No. of Characters: 2117 1500
No. of Different Words: 153 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.483 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.24 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.73 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 154 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.238 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.671 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.364 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.541 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
In this argument, the author claims that...
^^
Line 1, column 206, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...g water sports population. However, the authors contention contains groundless asumptio...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...th possible alternative explanations. To begin with, the author assumes that M...
^^
Line 2, column 375, Rule ID: BORED_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'bored with'?
Suggestion: bored with
...y water sports frequently, and they are bored of commonplace activities. Furthermore, be...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nce on water sports might not be true. Secondly, the author presumes more assum...
^^
Line 3, column 657, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'increased'?
Suggestion: increased
...or the river for water sports should be increase is groundless. Finally, the author a...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...orts should be increase is groundless. Finally, the author assumes that the cle...
^^
Line 4, column 484, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...at the plan nullified. Accordingly, the authors assumption that the cleaning of the riv...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd potentially harm the authors claim. In conclusoin, the authors argument cont...
^^
Line 5, column 22, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...he authors claim. In conclusoin, the authors argument contains several unwarranted a...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 117, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ns and these assumptions might harm the authors contention, so further evidence should ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, finally, furthermore, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, for instance, in addition, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 33.0 55.5748502994 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2166.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 404.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36138613861 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48327461151 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83841286452 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.40099009901 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 654.3 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.5147186127 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.142857143 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2380952381 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.04761904762 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 5.25449101796 209% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.219509257143 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0865560257169 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0801954903449 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130424988726 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0920550095268 0.0628817314937 146% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => 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.