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 author provides the two pieces of evidence to support the argument that use of river at the Mason City is about to increase for water sports. Though the evidence may at first seem plausible, it doesn't substantiate the argument and therefore, the government should not devote more money to develop the riverside recreational facilities.
The first piece of evidence cited by the author is the survey conducted by spurious sources in which the Mason City residents have ranked water sports among their favourite recreational activities. It is being assumed in the argument that survey has been conducted by the authentic sources and had sample size large enough to be representative of the population. However, no details of the survey have been provided. If there were only a few people who ranked the water sport as their favourite recreational activity, it does not necessarily translates to people going to the river for water sports. There might be other rivers or water park present nearby which are far cleaner and better than the river at the Mason City. It is also being assumed that the people who have ranked the watersports as their favourite recreational activity would go to the river after creating new faciilities for water sport at the river in the Mason City. Since it is obscure whether people will use the river in the Mason city for water sports, the city government should not devote more budget because it will only lead to the failure.
The second piece of evidence cited by the author is complaints from inhabitants about the quality of water and fetid smell. It is being assumed in the argument that complainants are complaining because they want to use the river for water sports. However, it fails to take into account the people living near the coast of the river. It is possible that the only people complaining are those who reside in the vicinity of the river because foul smell from river is making their lives difficult. Since the motivation behind complaining is unclear, it is likely that less people will use the river for water sport and therefore it would be futile on the part of the government to devote more money. Next, it is being assumed that the city government has funds available to the improve the recreational facilities at the riverside. It might be that there are some other more pressing issue the government would want to channel its fund to address those issues. Issues like cleanliness and education are important than the recreation and deserve more attention and funding than the development of recreational facilities at the riverside.
Also, it is being assumed that there are no other rivers or water parks near the Mason City and people don't go there. Since the river at the Mason city was unclean and had foul smell, people are likely to be afraid of using it for the water sports even after cleaning. Thus, it would be fruitless to devote more budget to improve the riverside recreational facilities.
In conclusion, the government should not devote more money to the development of the riverside recreational facilities because the supporting survey is apocryphal and the only people who were complaining may have been those whose houses are present near the rivers.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 548 350
No. of Characters: 2651 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.838 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.838 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.554 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.095 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.495 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.376 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.533 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 199, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...vidence may at first seem plausible, it doesnt substantiate the argument and therefore...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 883, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'translate'
Suggestion: translate
...ional activity, it does not necessarily translates to people going to the river for water ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 2026, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...mplaining is unclear, it is likely that less people will use the river for water spo...
^^^^
Line 1, column 2232, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... city government has funds available to the improve the recreational facilities at the rive...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 2699, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...er parks near the Mason City and people dont go there. Since the river at the Mason ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.6327345309 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2684.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 546.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91575091575 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83390555256 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60674124032 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.371794871795 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 868.5 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.4126957557 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.80952381 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.7619047619 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 5.15768463074 19% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.317615297505 0.218282227539 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115374486077 0.0743258471296 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0874768337222 0.0701772020484 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.317615297505 0.128457276422 247% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0628817314937 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.33 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.