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 argument above states that the municipal should devote more money to cities riverside recreational facilities, just because of supposed interest in water sports. However, the argument above is rife with holes to arrive to such a conclusion.
First of all we need to scrutinize this survey which ranks water sports as Mason city's favorite recreational activity. They state this inspite of telling us later on that water sport is a rare event in Mason city. So how can dwellers claim that they love water sport when they do not even perform such activities. The article needs to point out that many of the city's residents travel outside to carry out such activities, then it can be more believable that the residents love water sports.
The survey itself needs to be clearly stated as in, what was the survey about? Which questions were asked that lead the author to believe that the residents loved water sports. While cleaner river might be beneficial for the city. But we need to get the context for the cities lack of devotion in maintaining riverside recreational facilities. Perhaps there were other more urgent matters that required their attention. Maybe they did not have enough budget, or people just wanted the government to do other things and were not concerned with the state of the river.
The point is we cannot simply say that the governments indifference to maintain the river was standing as a hindrance to the residents from participating in water sports, which is what the author is implying. The complaints for the quality of river water, maybe a recent phenomena. The author does not give a clear time from which this complaints began. Perhaps the water recently became pugancious, and that is the sole reason for complaint. Maybe the water was fine before but people still did not care to use the river for water sport. In conclusion, cleaner water will definitely be better for the environment and the city, however, it does not necessarily mean that water sport activity will increase.
The above argument does not give sufficient clear evidences of the Mason city dwellers interest in water sports. It just gives us circumstantial evidence. Also governments lack of interest in cleaning the river may not be the primary factor for the cities lack of activity with regards to water sports. Cleaner river will not necessarily mean a boom for water sports in Mason city. So devoting more money may not be the wiser course of action, as that money could be used to solve other more urgent problems.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 428 350
No. of Characters: 2059 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.548 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.811 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.44 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.609 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.008 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.435 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.502 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 817, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tated as in, what was the survey about? Which questions were asked that lead the auth...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 1348, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'governments'' or 'government's'?
Suggestion: governments'; government's
... point is we cannot simply say that the governments indifference to maintain the river was ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 1576, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'phenomenon'?
Suggestion: phenomenon
... quality of river water, maybe a recent phenomena. The author does not give a clear time ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 1587, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... river water, maybe a recent phenomena. The author does not give a clear time from ...
^^^
Line 1, column 1636, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...r does not give a clear time from which this complaints began. Perhaps the water rec...
^^^^
Line 1, column 2167, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... just gives us circumstantial evidence. Also governments lack of interest in cleanin...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, still, then, well, while, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2092.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 428.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88785046729 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.52307890388 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460280373832 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 658.8 705.55239521 93% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.6192117918 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.9565217391 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6086956522 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.04347826087 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 5.15768463074 19% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.300064256551 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0910025918974 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.068424051227 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.300064256551 0.128457276422 234% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0628817314937 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.