The author asserts that the city government should appropriate more budget on the riverside recreational facilities at Mason River since the use of them by the residents will sure to increase after the clean-up of the river. However, this argument is based on several questionable assumptions that need to be verified to strengthen the argument.
First, the author assumes that the river is not used for the recreational purposes due to its poor water quality. However, there might be other reasons for the river not being used. Perhaps, the depth or the speed of the river flow is too deep and fast that it might be dangerous to use for the recreational purpose. Or, there might be a famous river site in the near city that many residents go there during the vacation instead of using the Mason River. That is, the river quality might not be the reason for the river to be rarely used. If so, even if the government proceed the plan successfully to clean up the river, the use of the river for recreational use might not increase as the author expected.
The second assumption by the author is that the recreational facilities of the Mason River are in the poor conditions since the lack of budget used for their maintenance. However, the low budget does not mean that the bad conditions of the facilities. Rather, there might be no need to use much money on the facilities since it is well managed with a little budget until now. If that is the case, the more devotion of budget for the facilities will be unnecessary and even result in the waste of money in the inappropriate places.
Lastly, the author presumes that the recreational facilities in the Mason River are used for the water sports that residents like. According to the survey, the favorite recreational activities among the citizens were swimming, boating, and fishing. It is likely that those activities do not need recreational facilities much. Thus, even if the two above assumptions are proven to be true, it is uncertain whether the recreational facilities will be used by the residents.
To sum up, the author needs to check the aforementioned assumptions not to waste time and money of government in the unnecessary project.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK. In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. but there are other favorite recreational activities too, for example, soccer. and maybe soccer ranks No. 1 and need 90% budget. 'Devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities' means less money to other activities like soccer.
----------------
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 378 350
No. of Characters: 1782 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.409 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.714 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.717 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 103 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 77 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.235 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.708 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.614 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.129 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, second, so, then, thus, well, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1833.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 378.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84920634921 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7664381797 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.425925925926 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 583.2 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
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: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.2528466498 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.823529412 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2352941176 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.94117647059 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274889570987 0.218282227539 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10149078322 0.0743258471296 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0733183727995 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142408969309 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0794167859395 0.0628817314937 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.36 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.