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 litt

The passage concludes that government should invest more money in the riverside recreational facilities of Mason River. The author highlights the benefit it will pose to the residents of the Mason City based on a survey. While at first look the arguments seems quite conceivable, a closer look spells out a number of assumptions that could undermine its assessment.

Firstly, the arguer is talking about some survey done in the Mason City. But no information is given regarding this survey. Perhaps few people were part of this survey; thus, undermining authenticity of the survey, as government cannot devote large money on the project based on such survey. Moreover, there is no guarantee that by spending large amount of money on riverside recreational facilities it will be used by majority of residents of the city.

Secondly, the author mentions about the complain made by people regarding the quality of river water and river's smell. Again, there is no data provided by the author about number of complains made. Maybe there are 10-15 complains made in past few years regarding it, indicating that issue is not that exigent, in the way presented by the author. Therefore, contributing large part of budget on such project may be not beneficial for the residents of the city. Perhaps Mason City needs more number of schools or road maintenance on an urgent basis, and this budget can be utilized on such important projects. Hence, before spending money all the aspects should be considered carefully.

Lastly, there are chances that cleaning of Mason River will not change people' interest towards using it for the recreational activities. The arguer is making assumptions and based on such speculations big portion of budget should not be assigned to it. A thorough survey should be conducted and germane list of questions should be prepared, which clearly indicates likes and dislikes of residents towards such recreational activities. Additionally, there are chances that after the cleaning of
Mason River people will not maintain it and within few months, again the river will become dirty and stinky. So, the government should made the investment wisely.

To conclude, though it seems that the author has done some research before backing the prospect of contribution of large portion of budget for cleaning of Mason River, an in-depth scrutiny reveals that none of the argument put forth has been backed by exhaustive analysis; thus, providing little credible support. As it stands, the recommendation looks flawed in multiple aspects, and may not give result as expected by the author.

Votes
Average: 2.6 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 37, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... Secondly, the author mentions about the complain made by people regarding the quality of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 508, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... Mason City needs more number of schools or road maintenance on an urgent basis, ...
^^
Line 7, column 494, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e are chances that after the cleaning of Mason River people will not maintain it ...
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, lastly, look, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, while, talking about

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2191.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 421.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20427553444 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.716631554 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491686460808 0.468620217663 105% => 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: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5334193199 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.55 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.05 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.65 5.70786347227 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.185799080587 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0594309243875 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060111342668 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0998334588009 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0359196799042 0.0628817314937 57% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.

argument 1 -- not OK

argument 2 -- not OK

argument 3 -- not exactly
--------------------

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: 421 350
No. of Characters: 2130 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.53 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.059 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.65 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.05 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.98 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5