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 argument is faulty because of numerous reasons. In thinking that the cleaning of the river will increase the river for water sports the government fails to notice the time discrepancy among the related events and also ignores the fact that there may be other reasons than the waters cleanliness that prevents the residents from using the Mason river for their recreational activities.
First of all, the residents complaining about the quality of the river water doesn't mean that once the river is cleaned up, they will start to go there immediately for their recreational activities. They may simply be trying to improve their milieu which doesn't have any relation with their pastimes in any way. Again, the river water may be unusable for the recreational activities for some other reasons. maybe the Mason river has very shallow waters that doesn't allow for wither swimming or boating. The river may be contaminated with nearby industrial discharges that precludes the survival of fish within its waters which makes fishing also a fruitless activity. If we had definitive evidence that the residents apathy is only because of the cleanliness and quality of the river and not some other reasons, then we could get further insight onto the matter in question.
Secondly, the state has recently announed plans to clean up the mason river. As the details of the plans are unknown, we cannot say for sure that the cleaning process will not take more than a year. Maybe the river is in such a bad state that it'll take upto five years to clean up the whole river. Even then we have to prepare the riverside to able to accomodate for the residents recreational activities before they can actually start to frequent there which will require even more time. Therefore, just improving the quality of the water cannot determine that the use of river for water sports will surely increase.
Last but not the least, the argument unwarrantigly assumes that cleaning up the river will increase the riverside sports within this year and therefore the government should devote more money in this years budget. But for all we know, the river may take 2, 3 or even five years to get cleaned properly and even then we have to think about the proper refurbishing of the riverside and surrounding environment to make it more habitable and enjoyable for the residents. Without knowing the proper details of the announcement, therefore, the governments devoting of more money in this years budget to reverside recreational facilities may not prove fruitful at all.
The argument doesn't provide enough evidence for us to reach the conclusion that improving the quality of the Mason river ensures its popularity among the residents. It also fails to provide evidence that the announced task will be finished within a year and thus the arguments suggesion of devoting more money in this years budget to riverside's recreational facilities is also unsound.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Secondly, the state has recently announed plans to clean up the mason river.
Error: announed Suggestion: announced
Sentence: Maybe the river is in such a bad state that it'll take upto five years to clean up the whole river.
Error: upto Suggestion: unto
Sentence: Even then we have to prepare the riverside to able to accomodate for the residents recreational activities before they can actually start to frequent there which will require even more time.
Error: accomodate Suggestion: accommodate
Sentence: Last but not the least, the argument unwarrantigly assumes that cleaning up the river will increase the riverside sports within this year and therefore the government should devote more money in this years budget.
Error: unwarrantigly Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Without knowing the proper details of the announcement, therefore, the governments devoting of more money in this years budget to reverside recreational facilities may not prove fruitful at all.
Error: reverside Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: It also fails to provide evidence that the announced task will be finished within a year and thus the arguments suggesion of devoting more money in this years budget to riverside's recreational facilities is also unsound.
Error: suggesion Suggestion: suggestion
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK.
argument 3 -- not exactly
----------------
There is an outline:
https://www.testbig.com/story/gre-argument-essay-topic-16-outline
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 494 350
No. of Characters: 2414 1500
No. of Different Words: 210 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.714 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.887 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.571 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.059 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.968 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.579 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.137 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 281, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'waters'' or 'water's'?
Suggestion: waters'; water's
...hat there may be other reasons than the waters cleanliness that prevents the residents...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 78, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ng about the quality of the river water doesnt mean that once the river is cleaned up,...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 256, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...be trying to improve their milieu which doesnt have any relation with their pastimes i...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 408, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Maybe
...onal activities for some other reasons. maybe the Mason river has very shallow waters...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 459, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ason river has very shallow waters that doesnt allow for wither swimming or boating. T...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 708, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'residents'' or 'resident's'?
Suggestion: residents'; resident's
... If we had definitive evidence that the residents apathy is only because of the cleanline...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 14, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... prove fruitful at all. The argument doesnt provide enough evidence for us to reach...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2459.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02862985685 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60012870539 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437627811861 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 774.9 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => 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: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.7818470151 57.8364921388 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.611111111 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1666666667 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.22222222222 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204583791682 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0797300644192 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0614910619482 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136453616106 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0621037115041 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.