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 passage states that, the Mason City government should devote more of it's budget to the Mason River recreational facilities. At first glance, it might seem logical to agree with the author's point of view that, since the resident's rank water sports among their favorite, developing the riverside facilities would be good for most os the city's residents. However, when we take a closer look at the argument, it is possible to notice that the author's position is based on questionable assumptions and fragile arguments. The reasoning is flawed and raises serious questions regarding it's validity.
First of all, it's important to analyze the author's claim that the Mason City residents rank water sports among their favorite recreational activities. What surveys were taken in order to come up with that conclusion? What questions were in this survey, and where were it taken? If in the survey they only interviewed few residents from riverside neighbourhoods, is wouldn't be valid for supporting the author's point of view. Moreover, even if many people did respond that they like water sports among they favorite activities, it is possible that they only like to watch them on television, for instance. Or maybe there is a perfectly good lake or beach, very close to Mason City, that is the favorite place for the city's residents to practice water sports. In theses cases, putting money in Mason River recreational facilities would be inaproppriate.
Following the aforementioned argument, there is the claim that, for years, there are complaints about the river's water quality and the river's smell. But, as claimed before, if the complaints come from a small part of the city's population, maybe it would not be in everyone's interest that that specific river should receive more attention. There is no information about the sources or the validity of that afirmation.
While it is reasonable to agree with the author's assumption that, since the state has announced plans to clean up the Mason River, it's use for water sports is likely to increase, this is not necessarily true. It is possible that people wouldn't practice watersports in that river, if they had other options.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: At first glance, it might seem logical to agree with the author's point of view that, since the resident's rank water sports among their favorite, developing the riverside facilities would be good for most os the city's residents.
Error: os Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: In theses cases, putting money in Mason River recreational facilities would be inaproppriate.
Error: inaproppriate Suggestion: inappropriate
Sentence: There is no information about the sources or the validity of that afirmation.
Error: afirmation Suggestion: affirmation
Sentence: It is possible that people wouldn't practice watersports in that river, if they had other options.
Error: watersports Suggestion: water ports
----------------
argument 1 -- not exactly
argument 2 -- not OK
----------------
read the sample:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/surveys-mason-city…
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 359 350
No. of Characters: 1790 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.353 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.986 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.656 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 113 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.438 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.81 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 365, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...dents from riverside neighbourhoods, is wouldnt be valid for supporting the authors poi...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 42, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...hile it is reasonable to agree with the authors assumption that, since the state has an...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 237, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...sarily true. It is possible that people wouldnt practice watersports in that river, if ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, look, may, moreover, regarding, so, while, for instance, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1823.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 357.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10644257703 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73450766855 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.504201680672 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 568.8 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5303126846 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.9375 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3125 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.875 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.196577704273 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0652729177579 0.0743258471296 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0996964924241 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113820997142 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0759921770858 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => 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: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.