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 given argument has reached a conclusion which asks the city government to devote more money to the recreational activities of the Mason River. There are various unstated facts in this argument which should be analyzed without reaching such a conclusion in a hurry.
To begin with, the term "surveys" is mentioned vaguely, the time, year, number of people participated, age group of people, none of this is mentioned. For all we know, this could be a survey of only 10 people amongst the whole citizens. So accepting the author's assumption of water sports being the favourite recreational activities of all the residents can be refuted.
Later, the author mentions that Mason River is rarely used for water sports and city department doesn't devote enough money for the same. Here, the author assumes that the Mason River is completely suitable for water sports to carry out. He is not taking into consideration the depth of the river, the condition of the water bed, or the presence of dangerous sea animals like crocodiles in the river. If anyone of the mentioned is true, even if the government devotes money for these recreational activities, it's going to be in vain because such conditions will put the lives of the residents in jeopardy which no one wishes to happen.
Moving forward, the author mentions the complaints from residents about the quality of river water and its smell for years. Here the author assumes, that the complains are being made by the citizens to clean the river and start water sports activities. For all we know, this could be a general complaint to maintain a hygienic environment. Relating the cleaning of the river, with an expectation of increasing water sports activities is illogical.
Finally, I would like to state that, the author should go about the facts and actual conditions and feasibility of the river to carry out water sports, take a complete and detailed genuine survey of all the residents and then present his proposal to the government with facts and figures and a plan. Expecting the government to devote money without having detail information will lead to loss of national funds as well as time and efforts of the people who will work for this to carry out.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 264, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...st the whole citizens. So accepting the authors assumption of water sports being the fa...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 97, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ed for water sports and city department doesnt devote enough money for the same. Here,...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 508, Rule ID: IT_IS[19]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...oney for these recreational activities, its going to be in vain because such condit...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, if, so, then, well, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1856.0 2235.4752809 83% => OK
No of words: 376.0 442.535393258 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93617021277 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72445853098 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 215.323595506 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505319148936 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 577.8 704.065955056 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.5336134447 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.733333333 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0666666667 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.6 5.21951772744 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.255638996188 0.243740707755 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.098116585128 0.0831039109588 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0912900496507 0.0758088955206 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142023385595 0.150359130593 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0789775485832 0.0667264976115 118% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.1392134831 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.8420337079 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.1639044944 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 100.480337079 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.