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 reasoning in the argument is not logically flawed; however, it relies on a number of assumptions and lack of proper evidence. Primarily, the argument is based on a survey that shows residents of Mason city are into water sports, and there is a river in the city which can be used for this purpose. The river needs more budget to be revived and clean for new facilities. Although, the unwarranted assumptions of the argument render its main conclusion invalid.
The argument fails to provide any justification that would make the river an adequate place for this purpose. The argument implies that the river is contaminated and it need more budget to be clean. But it does not answer the type and amount of this contaminations. Are they cleanable forever or this pollution might come back again? In this case the river would not be a good place at all. Also, it declares that more money should be devoted but the term “more” actually incorporates a very large range and makes it ambiguous. More statistical and numeric details should be available to better evaluate the situation.
The argument also leaves many other unanswered questions. Another equally important criterion would be the location of the river and its distance to downtown area. The accessibility of the river to residents is an important factor. For instance, if the river is both too close or too far to the downtown, installing these facilities might trigger problems for the neighborhoods.
Finally, the argument claims without warrant about the authenticity and validity of the survey. Many factors are important about the survey. For example, the age and gender are an important factor. Or the level of their income. It is important to know is it the ordinary people of a society that prefers water sport for their recreational or it is a rich and prodigal level of the society. This can also help to justify the amount of budget that should be allocated for the project.
Because the argument makes several unjustified assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that cleaning Mason river, by devoting more money, would be a good idea to provide recreational facilities for the residents of this city.
| 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 |
- According to a recent report by our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies act 26
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The ability to maintain friendships with a small number of people over a long period of time is more important for happiness than the ability to make many new friends easily. 70
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter the college. 50
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter the college. 66
- 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 litt 59
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 368 350
No. of Characters: 1774 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.38 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.821 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.684 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.727 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.236 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.364 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.488 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 375, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” 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.
...e revived and clean for new facilities. Although, the unwarranted assumptions of the arg...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 246, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... does not answer the type and amount of this contaminations. Are they cleanable fore...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, however, if, so, then, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1836.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 368.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98913043478 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83802739867 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.486413043478 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.7243505599 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.4545454545 119.503703932 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7272727273 23.324526521 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22727272727 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.181100206321 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0502455953651 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0677254457441 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111390296246 0.128457276422 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0568209621618 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.