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 litt

Essay topics:

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 these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

The passage states that it is critical for the government to instill additional funds from the current budget to riverside recreational facilities. This assertion is based on the assumption that cleaning up the Mason River would undoubtedly engender an increase in the usage of the river for water sports. However, the allegation of such requires much examination and could likely be unwarranted. I would like to use the following paragraphs to disprove the certainty of the assumption, as well as provide alternative explanations that could challenge the contention in the passage given.

First and foremost, the usage if the Mason River for water sports is likely to be affected by a multitude of variables. While there is no doubt that eliminating the water quality and odorous smells would certainly make visiting the river more attractive, it is spurious to say it would alone bring an increase notable enough to warrant more provisions of the budget to riverside recreational facilities. Some other factors that could certainly be in consideration for the water sports loving residents of Mason City could include the following. The landscape surrounding Mason River could be unattractive that recreation seekers would venture elsewhere for a better scenery. The geography of the river, and how precarious the environment is, could also dissuade the residents from visiting. In short, ridding the river of its unpleasant scents does not guarantee that other existing deterrence would be eradicated.

Equally noteworthy is how the relationship between cleaning up the river and putting in additional funds is likely reversed. It is highly possible that truly maintaining the the river could lead to the decrease in odor instead of the other way around. This could be inferred from the fact that the city park department used to devote little budget to maintaining the facilities. That could very well be the reason why the river quality deteriorated and started to expel nasty smells. We can see from the relationship that putting in more funds to the maintenance could eradicate the bad scents altogether. However, it should also be taken into consideration why the city park department cut down funds for the facilities in the first place. It was because the residents have never used the river for water sports to a noticeable extend to begin with. Therefore, we can safely assume the causal relationship for these facts is actually that due to the lack of visitors to the river, the department decided against putting an abundance of funds into it, which in turn gave rise to the odorous smells from the river. Solving the problems of the "effect" would not inherently imply that the issues upstream from the "cause" could be eliminated.

By way of conclusion, I would like to restate my belief that adding more funds to the facilities could be an erroneous decision. There is no evidence to suggest that getting rid of the smells would bring in more visitors, but it was likely that the lack of visitors indirectly caused the odors in the first place. Allocating a bigger proportion of the budget to the facilities could very well be met with a visitor count that is refusing to increase. This could lead to an expenditure that cannot be reimbursed with revenue from non-existing recreation seekers. In a nutshell, the allegation that use of the river for water sports would rise is likely to be spurious, and the assertion to increase funds on the riverside recreational facilities could be unfounded.

Average: 4.2 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Equally, deterrence would be eradicated. Equally noteworthy is how the relationship betw...
Line 9, column 171, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... highly possible that truly maintaining the the river could lead to the decrease in odo...
Line 9, column 171, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... highly possible that truly maintaining the the river could lead to the decrease in odo...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, so, still, therefore, well, while, in addition, in short, no doubt, as well as, to begin with, in the first place

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 29.0 12.9520958084 224% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 79.0 55.5748502994 142% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2971.0 2260.96107784 131% => OK
No of words: 577.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14904679376 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90110439584 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92778068071 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.429809358752 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 936.9 705.55239521 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.3401523759 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.791666667 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0416666667 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41666666667 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.187191728608 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0657238071788 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0646675259334 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128809225502 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0553054537566 0.0628817314937 88% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 98.500998004 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.

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: 24 15
No. of Words: 577 350
No. of Characters: 2890 1500
No. of Different Words: 243 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.901 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.009 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.766 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 194 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 153 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 117 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 85 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.042 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.126 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.334 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.468 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.072 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5