The author argues here about the residents of Mason City complaints about the non-exploitation of the Mason River which was at first a park to practice sports at. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it would be evaluated. To justify this commendation, the author reasons that an only a small budget is devoted to the Mason River and no maintenance work is performed which made the residents complain. Hence the argument can be considered incomplete or substantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that Mason City residents rank water sports among their favorite activities to practice. This is merely an assumption made without a solid ground. For example, while some might want to practice water sports others might want to admire the beauty of the River and find it a peaceful place to meditate and relax. Hence the argument would have been more convincing if it explicitly stated that all of the residents with no exceptions would agree to like water sports more.
The argument readily claims that the author claims that the city park department devotes little budget on riverside facilities. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate correlation between sports practicing and river maintaining. To illustrate further, the author ignored what are the priorities of the city other than the river, it is possible that the government is establishing new infrastructures or they are bigger problems to deal with such as building hospitals or schools which is much important and to be prioritized. If the argument had provided evidence that the city doesn’t need any of the above then it would have been a lot more convincing to complain about the riverside.
Finally, the author notes that the state has recently responded that it will assure maintaining this riverside. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's conclusion in several critical aspects. For example, at what price these plans for maintaining come? is it really the priority of the government to respond to this kind of complaints? and How this action will impact the budget of the city's government? Without answering these questions, the reader is left to a wishful thinking.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by a detailed analysis on the government's plan for the city. Finally, to better assess the survey, it would be necessary to know more information about why the government did not act before that residents complain and was it planned to maintain the River before the complaints.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 448 350
No. of Characters: 2241 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.601 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.002 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.732 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.579 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.158 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.048 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 456, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...rmed which made the residents complain. Hence the argument can be considered incomple...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 355, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...a peaceful place to meditate and relax. Hence the argument would have been more convi...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 435, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...convincing if it explicitly stated that all of the residents with no exceptions would agre...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 690, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'complaining'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'convince' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: complaining
...t would have been a lot more convincing to complain about the riverside. Finally, the au...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 212, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors conclusion in several critical aspects....
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 321, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Is
...price these plans for maintaining come? is it really the priority of the governmen...
^^
Line 7, column 404, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
... to respond to this kind of complaints? and How this action will impact the budget ...
^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...wishful thinking. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, really, so, then, while, for example, in conclusion, kind of, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2298.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 447.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14093959732 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82544755959 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.501118568233 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 710.1 705.55239521 101% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.8382685263 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.428571429 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2857142857 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.25039738671 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0693258940239 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0804097081132 0.0701772020484 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136028315121 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0563312036792 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.53 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.