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.
A Survey suggests that residents of mason city prefer water sports as there favorite recreational activity and also has a river at their vicinity which fulfills there requirement for water sports at their disposal, but the contrary is that the river is not used for any sort of recreational activities and instead due to no maintenance it tends to get polluted even though the city park department devotes a little budget of amount for the maintenance of the river for recreational activities, the residents complaints made an impact and the state is planning to clean the river and attract people to the recreational activities offered, which would lead to increase in income as well as the budget of maintenance of recreational facilities. However, before this recommendation is properly evaluated following questions must be answered first.
First and foremost, why is the river polluted at an extent which is leading to complaints to the government, even though it is not used for any sort of activities? If the river is not used for any sort of activities then it should be in pristine condition and should require minimum maintenance and minimum budget. However this might not be the case, there are chances that the residents of the city or the government are responsible for its pollution, because there are chances that the residents tend to throw waste in the river from the banks or the government authorities tend to dispose waste from city industries into the river. If any of this condition is true then it significantly weakens the argument.
Increasing the budget for maintenance for recreational facilities assures the cleanliness of the river and attracts residents to enjoy the recreational facilities but it could also lead to deterioration of the river as due to increased recreational activities there are equal chances of increased pollution in the river as people tend to intentionally or unintentionally pollute the river in one way or the other. This would significantly make the argument tenuously weak.
Finally, would cleaning up the river assure the increase in recreational facilities like water sport in the river? Cleaning the river would assure the solution to the problem of pungent foul smell from the river and make it look good aesthetically but it could not assure the increase in recreational facilities like water sports because There are chances that the river would attract visitors but not specifically for water sports, one would like to spend time in quiescence at the bank of the river which could be categorized in leisure activity. If this is true then the argument does not hold any significance.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the above questions and offer more evidence, then only it is able to be evaluated and propose if it is viable or not to clean the river and which would result in increased amount of recreational activity in Mason River.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 500 350
No. of Characters: 2495 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.729 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.99 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.927 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 35.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 23.933 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.929 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.392 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.605 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 316, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...minimum maintenance and minimum budget. However this might not be the case, there are c...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 636, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...te from city industries into the river. If any of this condition is true then it s...
^^
Line 13, column 16, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'clean'
Suggestion: clean
...ent tenuously weak. Finally, would cleaning up the river assure the increase in rec...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 550, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...uld be categorized in leisure activity. If this is true then the argument does not...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, look, so, then, well, in conclusion, sort of, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2547.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 500.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.094 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97832167504 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.388 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 814.5 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 38.0 22.8473053892 166% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 191.576208823 57.8364921388 331% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 195.923076923 119.503703932 164% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.4615384615 23.324526521 165% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.38461538462 5.70786347227 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.257944490915 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0805322003051 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0910643717501 0.0701772020484 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153160013107 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0963328072152 0.0628817314937 153% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.8 14.3799401198 152% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.91 48.3550499002 68% => OK
smog_index: 13.0 7.1628742515 181% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.1 12.197005988 148% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 59.0 12.3882235529 476% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 17.2 11.1389221557 154% => 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.