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 the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The benefits provided by enhanced riverside recreational facilities should be thoroughly examined before the Mason City government agrees to invest monetary resources to the renovation of such facilities. The results of several surveys demonstrate that Mason City residents highly rank water sports when compared to other recreational activities. This data has caused some to relate improvements in water quality and smell to a direct increase in the usage of riverside recreational facilities. This argument is based on two fundamental assumptions. The validity and impact of these assumptions should be closely considered prior to increasing the portion of the Mason city budget dedicated to riverside recreational facilities.
Firstly, this argument assumes that the surveys described above fairly represent the current population of all Mason City residents. The sample of respondents that participated in these surveys must be random in nature and large enough in size in order for the findings to be considered justifiable. If only individuals with a passion for water sports voluntarily answered these surveys, the sample would be viewed as biased. In this case, the data would fail to accurately portray the thoughts and opinions of all Mason City residents; instead, it would overestimate the proportion of residents that rank water sport highly. Thus, investing in riverside recreational facilities may not be as profitable or productive as initially assumed.
Secondly, the argument assumes that poor water quality and smell is the only factor that is preventing Mason city residents from regularly using riverside recreational facilities. This perspective fails to acknowledge many other important variables which may potentially limit the use of such facilities, even after the Mason River is restored. For example, these variables include the cost of equipment, the seasonality of water sports, and the extensive amounts of time required to visit riverside facilities. Despite having access to clean water, many residents may not be able to afford the products needed to engage in many water sports. Additionally, several of these facilities may need to remain close for the majority of the year due to climate restrains. Even during the appropriate seasons, people may find it challenging to set aside time in their daily lives to travel back and forth from these facilities. Overall, these factors may continue to restrict the use of riverside recreational facilities regardless of water quality and smell. Therefore, these factors must be addressed in order to avoid the consequences associated with overspending on water-front facilities.
The Mason City government is responsible for comparing the advantages and disadvantages of certain budget adjustments prior to rationing its financial resources. In order to protect the best interests of the city, government officials must assess the impact improved riverside recreational facilities may have upon their residents. Several obstacles may emerge if new, expensive riverside recreational facilities are unable to attract as many residents as initially anticipated. Firstly, other city programs may suffer from severe budget cuts. Reductions in the amount of funds dedicated to city streets, schools, parks, and so on that occurred in response to this change may notably impact many residents in a negative manner. For example, residents may have to repair their cars more frequently as departments responsible for maintaining the roads receive less funding. Secondly, the entire demeanor exhibited by residents may begin to shift as individuals become more and more frustrated with their city government and the allocation of resources. Some residents may question why the government has dedicated to cater to only a certain portion of the population that is interested in water sports. Rising levels of resentment and tension among city-dwellers may then begin to generate many unforeseen issues. For example, residents may not be willing to participate in other city-organized events and activities. In conclusion, these implications must be properly addressed before assuming that remodeled riverside recreational facilities are truly worthy of their costs.
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: 29 15
No. of Words: 636 350
No. of Characters: 3539 1500
No. of Different Words: 293 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.022 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.564 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.982 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 275 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 219 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 174 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 141 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.931 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.508 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.724 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.444 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.075 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 730, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d to riverside recreational facilities. Firstly, this argument assumes that the ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 230, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: enough
...veys must be random in nature and large enough in size in order for the findings to be conside...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 834, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'setting'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'challenge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: setting
...seasons, people may find it challenging to set aside time in their daily lives to trav...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 707, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a negative manner" with adverb for "negative"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...hange may notably impact many residents in a negative manner. For example, residents may have to rep...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 92.0 55.5748502994 166% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3612.0 2260.96107784 160% => OK
No of words: 636.0 441.139720559 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.67924528302 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.02185627292 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05621066655 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 297.0 204.123752495 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466981132075 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 1167.3 705.55239521 165% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.2935845392 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 124.551724138 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9310344828 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.51724137931 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.308184347192 0.218282227539 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0943365378445 0.0743258471296 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0665567515743 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.215130900641 0.128457276422 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0269182697704 0.0628817314937 43% => 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: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.66 12.5979740519 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 181.0 98.500998004 184% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.