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.
Mason City survey ranking the water sports as the favorite recreational activities and for this the state department will take a project of cleaning the river to eradicate the causes of low river usage. The author of the text argues that if the river is cleaned by the city government then the use of river for water sure to increase. It is clear from the passage that why the residents are eager to clean the river but the assumptions on which the argument is based has no strong evidence so the argument has several flaws.
Depending on the surveys the author has suggested that many city residents like water sports. But it is not said that how many residents participate in this survey. If only the people lives near the river is participated, then there arises a question about the validity of the surveys. If the passages says about the accurate number of people participate in survey and total number of people of the city then the assumption will be more valid.
Author talks about complains of resident about the odor and bad smell of the river to support his argument. But it is not clearly said that how much complains are submitted. If the numbers of complain is high, these can be complains of same people several times. Or it can be complains of a large number of people. But in the both cases complains are not represented the opinion of all people of Mason City. If that is the case, this assumption is unwarranted. And spend money for cleaning of river will be futile and people will not attracted toward the river sports.
The other assumption supporting the argument is that the account for low usage of river is pollution. But another reason can also be responsible for the low usage. For example, distance from the river, the high tide of the river etc. Then the cleaning of river will not affect so much.The main purpose for spending money will remain incomplete and will not increase usage of river.
In addition, here is another assumption on which author rests his most concentration to increase the allocation of money. The pollution of river, but the passage does not provide sufficient amount of evidence about the pollution whether it is manmade of natural. If it is manmade then it can be control. On the other hand, if it is natural then the allocation of money for the clean project will be a waste. For example, if there is leaching of toxic material from the bottom of the river, river cleaning will not able to eradicate the problem. Thus this assumption is not correct. If the author explain the cause of pollution then the argument will be more convincing.
All in all / In summary, for the allocation of money in river cleaning, author makes a series of assumption which is not backed by sufficient evidence and require more investigation. Without the proper investigation, the author argument cannot be accepted as valid. This inaccurate conclusion can lead state department to a huge loss.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | jason123 | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-26 | jason123 | 59 | view |
| 2020-01-20 | Ammu helen | 16 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | ramji90 | 82 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | shekhawat24 | 49 | view |
- In the next mayoral election residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition rather than for Frank Braun a member of the Clearview town council because the current members are not protecting our environment For 62
- A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a “burning mirror”: a polished copper surface curved to focus 75
- A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a “burning mirror”: a polished copper surface curved to focus 68
- Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouragedstudents to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omegaprofessors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall stude 55
- A little over 2,200 years ago, the Roman navy attacked the Greek port city of Syracuse. According to some ancient historians, the Greeks defended themselves with an ingenious weapon called a “burning mirror”: a polished copper surface curved to focus 71
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 512 350
No. of Characters: 2371 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.757 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.631 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.5 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.963 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.444 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.704 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 290, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...everal times. Or it can be complains of a large number of people. But in the both cases complains...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 535, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'attract'
Suggestion: attract
...iver will be futile and people will not attracted toward the river sports. The other a...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 286, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: The
...eaning of river will not affect so much.The main purpose for spending money will re...
^^^
Line 9, column 264, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...ution whether it is manmade of natural. If it is manmade then it can be control. O...
^^
Line 9, column 546, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...will not able to eradicate the problem. Thus this assumption is not correct. If the ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 583, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...m. Thus this assumption is not correct. If the author explain the cause of polluti...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, so, then, thus, for example, in addition, in summary, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2443.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 511.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78082191781 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58707534328 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.39530332681 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 774.9 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.817382512 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.25 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.25 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.07142857143 5.70786347227 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.182510293019 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0539371829069 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0734501127225 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111451368187 0.128457276422 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0897738745672 0.0628817314937 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 14.3799401198 71% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.53 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.