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 the assumptions and what the implications are if these assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the argument, the author recommends the city government spends more money on recreational facilities along The Manson River. While this suggestion may help to increase the satisfaction of Manson City residents, the reasoning of the argument is unconvincing due to several unsubstantiated assumptions which, if proven unwarranted, would seriously challenge the author's recommendation.
To start with, the author mentions the recently-announced plans to clean up the Manson River and further asserts that use of the river for water sports is sure to increase. This assertion relies heavily on the assumption that the cleaning plans of Mansion River will come to effect very soon. It is possible that the pollution of Mansion River is so serious that can not be reversed, or at least not in a short period of time. If this is the case, then it would be unreasonable to invest large sums of money into riverside recreasonal facilities in this year's budget since people still won't use Manson River for water sports due to its low water quality.
In addition, granted that the measures taken by the state to clean up the Mansion River are effective, the author's recommendation may also be impaired by another dubious assumption that the water quality of Mansion RIver and lack of recreational facilities are the only two reasons that are preventing people from using it for water sports. We do not know whether Mansion River is too shallow or too currential for recreational activities. It is of equal possibilities that the River is protected because it is the habitation for rare species or other rivers nearby serve as better choices for city residents for water sports. If any of the scenario is true, it would make no sence to allocate more budget to Mason River recreational facilities.
Finally, even if we concede that money spent on riverside recreational facilities along Manson River will turn it into the top choice for city residents' recreational activites, it is of equal importance that we keep cautious about the assumption that residents will actually take part in water sports. It is not a safely guranteed conclusion that can be readily derived from the results of surveys showing City residents ranking water sports among their favorites. When referring to "favorite", people may be indicating that they enjoy watching water sports competitions rather than actively join the game. If so, building recreational facilities along Manson River would be unnecessary due to lack of demands from residents.
To draw a conclusion, while I sympathize with the author's intention of better serving city residents' recreational requirements, whether or not to allocation more budget on riverside recreational facilities remains fundamentally depending on the reliability of the underlying assumptions. We need to carefully consider these assumptions to better evaluate the author's recommendation.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 462 350
No. of Characters: 2410 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.636 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.216 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.007 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.875 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.853 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.375 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.601 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.142 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 364, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...arranted, would seriously challenge the authors recommendation. To start with, the...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 412, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...be reversed, or at least not in a short period of time. If this is the case, then it would be ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 108, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...up the Mansion River are effective, the authors recommendation may also be impaired by ...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 51, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...conclusion, while I sympathize with the authors intention of better serving city reside...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 129, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...ty residents recreational requirements, whether or not to allocation more budget on riverside ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 360, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...hese assumptions to better evaluate the authors recommendation.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, if, may, so, still, then, while, at least, in addition, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2470.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 461.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3579175705 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14917411153 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488069414317 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 774.9 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 75.7411040568 57.8364921388 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.375 119.503703932 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.8125 23.324526521 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.875 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.272686827817 0.218282227539 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0950008881863 0.0743258471296 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0601399195483 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151801820682 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0577636243467 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 14.3799401198 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.4 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.86 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.