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.
According to the statement, Mason city requires a modified budget where the city government will have more emphasis on the investment of riverside recreational facilities. To make the statement valid some assumptions are placed mentioning the residents preference of water sports as recreational activities. In addition, residents complaints as to the quality and smell of water. has been considered as a reason to invest with assurance of having more water sports in future . There are some problems in correlating with the above logics with efficient budget decision.
Residents preference of water sports does not reflect their choice of the Mason River as their sporting spot. They may not prefer river as their sporting point. They may use indoor facilities for their recreational activities. Due to the risk of life, specially for children they may go for other options available rather than river.
Complaints regarding quality of water and the smell do not correlate the reasoning of the Mason river as potential spot for recreational activities. Residents may think these correlate the reasoning of the Mason river as potential spot for recreational activities. Residents may think these complaints necessary for health risk.
Moreover, there is no relation between less budget for recreational activities in maintaining riverside recreational facilities with residents complaints. As residents did not mention budget issue in their complaints.
In addition, there is no solid evidence exists that can compensate the extra budget as effective decision to increase riverside recreational activities. There may have another spots or river to trat water sports. Due to the risk factor residents may prefer comparatively safe place rather than river.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 244, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'residents'' or 'resident's'?
Suggestion: residents'; resident's
...e assumptions are placed mentioning the residents preference of water sports as recreatio...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 381, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Has
...s as to the quality and smell of water. has been considered as a reason to invest w...
^^^
Line 1, column 466, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...h assurance of having more water sports in future . There are some problems in correlatin...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 475, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ce of having more water sports in future . There are some problems in correlating ...
^^
Line 3, column 205, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ink these correlate the reasoning of the Mason river as potential spot for recrea...
^^
Line 4, column 155, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...l facilities with residents complaints. As residents did not mention budget issue ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, may, moreover, regarding, so, as to, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 19.5258426966 26% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 14.8657303371 20% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 2.0 11.3162921348 18% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 33.0505617978 33% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 58.6224719101 55% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1496.0 2235.4752809 67% => OK
No of words: 267.0 442.535393258 60% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.60299625468 5.05705443957 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04229324003 4.55969084622 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98292833288 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 130.0 215.323595506 60% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.486891385768 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 467.1 704.065955056 66% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 0.0 4.99550561798 0% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => 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: 15.0 23.0359550562 65% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.4132445138 60.3974514979 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.0 118.986275619 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.7058823529 23.4991977007 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.05882352941 5.21951772744 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 7.80617977528 77% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.273647297344 0.243740707755 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.098909182438 0.0831039109588 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0610488604621 0.0758088955206 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151664910273 0.150359130593 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0510807253882 0.0667264976115 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.8420337079 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.9 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 100.480337079 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.2143820225 71% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.