The argument claims that Mason cirty residents enjoy water sports, but do not use the local river for recreation, and postulates that sanity reasons may have a role play-- therefore, cleaning up the river should correct the disuse. It implicitly, and possibly incorrectlty assumes it relies on is that the complaints about the water quality are the (sole) reason that people do not use the river for recreational activities. The trite, but prudent remark that correlation does not imply causation, is of relevance here. It is intuitive to assume that sanitary reasons might put people off from using facilities. However, it may be the case that they contribute only minorly to people not using the river. There may be other reasons, that still persist. The current may be too strong for safe use, or the river may be rocky, or there might be sharks lurking in the river, or the river may simply be seen as holy and pious. In such a case, cleaning up the river is not going to help much, unless the other issues are also dealt with. A more appropriate course of action to increase the use of river for water sports, would be survey enquiring the reasons explicitly.
Another issue with the argument is that of proper information capaigns. If the government silently cleans up the river and sets up facilities, but nobody learns about or notices it (apart from the lack of smell), they'll continue, simply due to inertia, to abstain from using the river. It is thus important for the city government to advertise its efforts to clean up the river, through newspapers, television channels, posters, etc.
Should the government be responsible for setting up recreational facilities? It depends upon the priorities of the people who elected the government. Surely, some might argue, that the taxpayer ought not to be responsible for setting up facilities which offer luxuries. Perhaps, a more diplomatic route would be to allow commercial agencies to set them up. They would ultimately be funded by the people who actually are interested in water sports. The fraction of people who do not enjoy riverside activities, after all, should not be asked to fund them, it could be argued. Therefore, it is also not clear if the funds to set up riverside facilities should come from the government budget at all. The best way may be to simply go commercial.
Whether it is in public interest for riverside facilities to develop, is another debatable point. Even if people enjoy watersports, there might be reasons it would not be wise to create recreational facilities in the particular area. Perhaps there is a school nearby, and a large crowd visiting the place would put children at risk. There might be a hospital requiring peace and quiet, instead of the hustle and bustle of a tourist destination. The people of the city in general might prefer that their city remain a rustic little place, not a tourist hotspot. Again, the cultural background is rel
These were a few issues I could identify with the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 212, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: they'll
...otices it apart from the lack of smell, theyll continue, simply due to inertia, to abs...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus, after all, apart from, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 13.1623246493 243% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 7.85571142285 318% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 10.4138276553 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 7.30460921844 205% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 30.0 24.0651302605 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 41.998997996 138% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 8.3376753507 180% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2502.0 1615.20841683 155% => OK
No of words: 511.0 315.596192385 162% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.89628180039 5.12529762239 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.20363070211 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65265180415 2.80592935109 95% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 176.041082164 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.499021526419 0.561755894193 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 780.3 506.74238477 154% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.60771543086 93% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 5.43587174349 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 2.52805611222 356% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 0.809619238477 1112% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.76152304609 105% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 16.0721442886 162% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.6646279967 49.4020404114 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.2307692308 106.682146367 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6538461538 20.7667163134 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.84615384615 7.06120827912 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 3.9879759519 251% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 3.4128256513 147% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.117341943753 0.244688304435 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0385158030205 0.084324248473 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0322334787101 0.0667982634062 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0592859217502 0.151304729494 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0388146641138 0.056905535591 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 13.0946893788 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 50.2224549098 121% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 11.3001002004 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.14 12.4159519038 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.58950901804 94% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 78.4519038076 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 9.78957915832 148% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 10.7795591182 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 56.1797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 9
---------------------
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.