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 the 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 points out the way to increase the use of Mason River for riverside water sports, which is to clean the river assuming that dirtiness is the main cause for the river not being used for river sports and devote more money in the budget to riverside recreational facilities. But the argument is rife with three unwarranted assumptions, that, to prove the persuasiveness of the claim should be addressed.
First, the author states the result of a survey about water sports being favorite recreational activities. There is a strong probability that the people have been surveyed are not representative of the whole population of the city. Maybe the survey was done on a few people living by the riverside whose life is well connected to the river then the majority of city dwellers who has a liking for other sports rather than water sports. If this is the case, then it will render the result of the survey invalid and make the author's argument weak.
Secondly, the author assumes that cleaning up the river will improve its water quality and attract many more people. If may be true for some cases. For instances, if the river is being polluted by nearby chemical industries then shutting them down and cleaning the water might be a viable solution. But what if the river is being polluted due to some natural or geographical reasons?
There are some water bodies which emits a bad odor due to sulfur deposits underneath. If the Mason river is being polluted due to such kinds of natural phenomenon, then cleaning up will bring no result at all.
Finally, the author’s prediction about increased water activities in the Mason River after cleaning may not necessarily be true. It may happen that, the river is not wide and deep enough to be suitable for water sports. If the river is filled with rocks or mud then it will put great disadvantage for water sports. There is the potential that there are other rivers, lakes or indoor swimming pool in the city which are more suitable for water sports then the Mason River. If above-mentioned cases are true, then investing money in cleaning the Mason River will be a mere wastage of money let alone making it a recreational place.
The author’s contention, which is based on some unwarranted assumptions, requires more scientific and practical analysis to hold water. More information from the authorities who look after the recreational facilities in the city might give the author’s argument a strong ground.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 421 350
No. of Characters: 2009 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.53 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.772 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.573 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.158 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.987 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.606 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 385, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the majority of city dwellers who has a liking for other sports rather than wate...
^^
Line 5, column 524, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...sult of the survey invalid and make the authors argument weak. Secondly, the autho...
^^^^^^^
Line 19, column 274, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... might give the author's argument a strong ground.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, well, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2086.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 421.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95486935867 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7141298751 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467933491686 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 652.5 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => 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: 51.1019295352 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.789473684 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1578947368 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.31578947368 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.211800829807 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0716556964686 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0623161692175 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116230158534 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0537264216587 0.0628817314937 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.