The argument that stated that, the city government should invest the money for recreational activities to riverside in Mason city resident because the state has recently announced about a plan to clean up the Mason river is not entirely cogent, since, it ignores certain pivotal assumptions and the research is also incomplete as well.
First, the argument assumes that the Mason city residents favorites recreational activities are swimming, boating and fishing on the basis of survey. However, it is unwarranted because the argument did not mention about the reliability of the survey. Furthermore, it is not clear that how many people answers about the survey question and moreover it is not clear that the survey was taken for which groups of people in the state. It is also not mention that what types of option were given to choose for recreational activities and it may be taken for only riverside people which could not represent the overall Mason City residents.
Second, the argument never addresses what could be the major causes for the Mason river pollution. It may be because of haphazard maintaining of recreational activities by city park department. If within a year, a river may polluted so badly and have to start a clean up plan then we can clearly imagine the long term effect in the river natural condition if they invest more money for only recreational activities but not focus on river maintenance.
Finally, the argument omits the public sentiments towards river and its cleanliness. How can any one predict that the river would be in good condition after certain clean up program. It may be highly deteriorate because of recreational activities in the river. In addition, the argument did not give attention about the importance of river than recreational activities. If public were so attracted about the recreational activities than they would be definitely give attention about the river condition also. It is clear that, only certain group of people are interested to do recreational activities in the Mason river but not the whole state. Moreover, the argument did not mention about the data of public participation on recreational activities. With out clear data and evidence there is not any logic to request a city government to devote money in budget to riverside recreational facilities.
Thus, the argument is unsound. The evidence in support of the conclusion is not valid. Ultimately, the argument might have been buttressed by some other people, who will get benefit after the declaration of budget for Mason city recreational activities in Mason river.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
--------------------
samples:
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: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 423 350
No. of Characters: 2133 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.535 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.043 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.783 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.264 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.38 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.558 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 116, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...for recreational activities to riverside in Mason city resident because the state...
^^
Line 3, column 369, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...estion and moreover it is not clear that the survey was taken for which groups of...
^^
Line 5, column 452, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ies but not focus on river maintenance. Finally, the argument omits the public s...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 94, Rule ID: ANY_BODY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'anyone'?
Suggestion: anyone
...ards river and its cleanliness. How can any one predict that the river would be in good...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 504, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...ive attention about the river condition also. It is clear that, only certain group o...
^^^^
Line 7, column 608, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ted to do recreational activities in the Mason river but not the whole state. Mor...
^^
Line 7, column 753, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: Without
...rticipation on recreational activities. With out clear data and evidence there is not an...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, then, thus, well, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2184.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 423.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16312056738 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8518830982 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.430260047281 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 705.6 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.678939334 57.8364921388 122% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.947368421 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2631578947 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73684210526 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
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: 0.278269178529 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0972202999815 0.0743258471296 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.086200662842 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185044289492 0.128457276422 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0417783489093 0.0628817314937 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.01 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.