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 results of surveys addressed to Mason City residents indicate that water sports are one of most famous recreational activities in the area. Nevertheless, the Mason River crossing the city is not often used for these purposes. It is polluted and smelly. It is stated that government ought to devote more money in order to clean up the river and maintain the riverside recreational facilities. However, it is not mentioned how the use of these facilities will increase the resources and be an enticing project for the government. It is easy to understand why residents request a cleaner river but the given argument is not enough to justify an increased funding by the government.
First of all, it is stated that people from Mason City love water sports but this does not necessarily imply that they wish to exercise water sports in the river. It is normal for them to desire a clean river without annoying smell because a clean and healthy environment is desirable for everyone but it is unknown if they would like fishing, swimming or boating in it. The conclusion of the author that after cleaning process the use of the river for water sports will increase is arbitrary. More specific questions should be involved in the survey’s questionnaire such as if the residents of Mason City would love exercising the water sports in the river if it is clean. Moreover, people who participated in the survey should be from all the city’s suburbs and not just from those who live close to riversides and the number of the participant should be enough big. So the results will be more cogent and representative. However, the author is not precise and does not cite enough reliable data.
Furthermore, the author does not provide enough information and reasons for the government to increase the funding for maintaining riverside recreational facilities. It should be referred how these facilities will be profitable and increase the state resources. Thus a potential state financing would be beneficial for both residents and government. For example, the exploitation of these facilities can have enough satisfying earnings, so the state will have financial profit.
Finally, it should be emphasized that a clean and beautiful river would make the city more attractive for visitors. Tourism can contribute to an economic development for the area and gradually offer a more advanced and qualified life for residents. Nevertheless, the author is not enough persuasive with his arguments to achieve a financing from the government side.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 416 350
No. of Characters: 2080 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.516 4.7
Average Word Length: 5 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.788 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.979 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.488 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...increased funding by the government. First of all, it is stated that people f...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... does not cite enough reliable data. Furthermore, the author does not provide...
^^^
Line 5, column 266, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...table and increase the state resources. Thus a potential state financing would be be...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he state will have financial profit. Finally, it should be emphasized that a ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, thus, for example, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2135.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 416.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13221153846 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90513435353 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.456730769231 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 675.0 705.55239521 96% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.5338061225 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.75 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => 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: 0.27353945676 0.218282227539 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.092408225336 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0897749558065 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177015246292 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0988412264545 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.