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 author of the argues that the use of the Mason River for water sports will increase if the state cleans it up and devotes more budget to riverside recreational facilities. He supports this argument by claiming that the residents listed water sports as their favourite recreational activities and they are discouraged by the uncleanliness of the river. It is clear that this argument contains a lot of unwarranted assumptions that deem it weak.
Firstly, the author assumes that by cleaning up the river, the use of the river for recreational activities will indeed increase. He supported his claim by the fact that a survey has been done and most residents agreed that water sports are their favorite activities. What was not considered is the locations where the residents that have been surveyed are living. Obviously, people living riverside would prefer recreational activities by the river, because it is more efficient than seeking recreational activities elsewhere. On the other hand, residents living further away from the river might not have the same in mind, since it can be a hassle to drive all the way to the river to have some joyful time. Therefore, if the survey was mainly focused on residents living by the river, it would completely soften the grounds on which the author's conclusion is based on.
Secondly, it is assumed that the river is not used for recreational activities by the residents due to its unpleasant smell and general uncleanliness. It has not been considered that there might be other valid reasons for this situation, for instance, the river might be hard to access by car or the road leading to it might not be well constructed for casual use by the residents. It totally makes sense for the residents to not to use the river as often if it is hard to reach and causes much hassle. Also, the environment around the river might not be welcoming or dangerous, for instance, the area around the river might be a forest that is inhabited by grizzly bears, which are known to be very violent and deadly. Therefore, the residents would not risk their lives to do some water sports considering the nature of the area. Consequently, the cleaning up of the river might not factually increase its use for recreational activities, since the surrounding environment and access to it will be a huge discouragement for the residents.
Finally, it is clear that this argument has plenty of unwarranted assumptions that will significantly weaken it. The author depends greatly on these assumptions and although providing more budget for cleaning up the river might be a great idea, it does not necessarily mean that it definitely increases the river's use for water sports. Therefore must bring forward more convincing and realistic evidence to support his argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 468 350
No. of Characters: 2286 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.651 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.885 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.767 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.485 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.378 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.541 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 841, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...pletely soften the grounds on which the authors conclusion is based on. Secondly, ...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 337, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...reases the rivers use for water sports. Therefore must bring forward more convincing and ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, consequently, finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, for instance, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2346.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 468.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01282051282 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83571080204 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440170940171 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 729.0 705.55239521 103% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.686562733 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.333333333 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.16666666667 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.220547208144 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.083396196661 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0552964010317 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148204987379 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0435239137466 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.