People should question the rule of authority as opposed to accepting them passively
The writer concludes that the city government should devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
The author assumes that use of river for water sports is sure to increase because, the state has recently announced plans to clean up
Mason River. However the conclusion relies on assumption for which there is no clear evidence.
Firstly, author cities surveys of city resident's and claims that city resident love water sports. However, the scope and validation
of survey is not clear. For example, the survey could have asked people if they prefer using river for water sports or would like
to see hydropelectric damn built, which might have tempted resident to choose water sports as an option. Residents whose survey was
taken might not represent whole city and are resident staying near river side. Survey could have been 10 pages long with only two questions
on water sports. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid and reliable, it cannot be used to effectively support author's
assumption.
In addition, author assumes that residents currently do not use river water for swimming, boating and fishing because it is polluted
and smelly. Although, it is mentioned that for years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of water it cannot be
identified upto what level water was polluted. Hence, we cannot determine exact relatinoship between lack of river use and current state
of the river. Author could have strengthen his/her argument by taking a survey of wide range of resident
by asking them why they currently do not use the river. Building upon this assumption, author concludes that cleaning up of river would
increase use of river for water sports. Unless the reason behind not using river currrently is not known, one cannot come to this conclusion.
According to the author, reason behind not using river for sports currently is smell and polluted water. But reason for this smell
and pollution is not stated. Smell might come from a natural phenomenon or bacteria that surrounds river also, there are some water bodies
that emit a strong smell of sulphur due to geographical location. If this is the reason, it cannot be solved by cleaning up the river.
Regardless of whether river clean up will solve the pollution and smell problem. It's impact on river usage is still unknown because
author does not show effective connection between river usage and pollution.
In the conclusion, this argument depends on certain simplified assumptions about cleaning up river will increase river usage for water sports and
hence city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
The author could have strengthen the argument by discussing other factors beyond clean up of river and by implimenting more reliable surveys
before concluding that, the city government should for that reason devote more money
in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 75, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... government should devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 14, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...nounced plans to clean up Mason River. However the conclusion relies on assumption for...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 132, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ports. However, the scope and validation of survey is not clear. For example, the...
^^^
Line 7, column 79, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to water'
Suggestion: to water
...h might have tempted resident to choose water sports as an option. Residents whose su...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 122, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t cannot be used to effectively support authors assumption. In addition, author ass...
^^^^^^^
Line 12, column 133, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ating and fishing because it is polluted and smelly. Although, it is mentioned th...
^^^
Line 14, column 137, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ween lack of river use and current state of the river. Author could have strength...
^^^
Line 15, column 33, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
...state of the river. Author could have strengthen his/her argument by taking a survey of ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 20, column 139, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... river also, there are some water bodies that emit a strong smell of sulphur due ...
^^^
Line 26, column 67, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ld for that reason devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational ...
^^^^
Line 27, column 23, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
...onal facilities. The author could have strengthen the argument by discussing other factor...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 28, column 85, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...should for that reason devote more money in this years budget to riverside recrea...
^^^
Line 29, column 4, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... for that reason devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, so, still, then, for example, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 58.6224719101 99% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2563.0 2235.4752809 115% => OK
No of words: 484.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29545454545 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56005242475 2.79657885939 92% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45041322314 0.4932671777 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 775.8 704.065955056 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.3295241727 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.434782609 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0434782609 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.82608695652 5.21951772744 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 24.0 4.97078651685 483% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 13.0 7.80617977528 167% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0721490664631 0.243740707755 30% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0260745304062 0.0831039109588 31% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0250257322195 0.0758088955206 33% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.027821882803 0.150359130593 19% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0250681960925 0.0667264976115 38% => 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: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 100.480337079 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.