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.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
While it may be true that the city government ought to spend more money on the riverside recreational facilities, this argument, however, does not make a resounding case for this recommendation. The recommendation is based on assumptions that are fraught with holes and misinterpretations, and, thus, might not result in increased use of the river for water sports.
First of all, the argument states that surveys show that Mason City residents rank water sports among their favorite leisure activities. It is unclear, however, the validity and accuracy of these surveys. It is possible that the surveys simply focus on the residents in a certain area (for example, residents near the river), instead of the general population of the city. In this way, the selected samples are largely biased, and could not represent the feelings of all the city residents. Therefore, the results of the surveys could be unreliable to draw the conclusion that water sports rank top among the list of their favorite recreational activities of the residents.
Furthermore, the argument states the city government should spend more money on maintaining the riverside recreational facilities, which is based on the assumption that putting in more money would increase the use of these facilities. The argument, however, fail to mention the current status of the recreational facilities. It is likely that the riverside recreational facilities are in good condition, and the city residents do not use it often because the poor water quality of the river. In this way, spending more money on maintaining riverside recreational facilities would, certainly, not lead to more use of the facilities because the problem lie in not the budget of maintenance, but the poor quality of river water.
Last but not least, the argument mentions that the government is going to clean up the river, based on the assumption that residents would be more satisfied with the quality of the river's water and smells and the numbers of people using it would increase. However, it is likely that the river water got contaminated from pollutions of factories in the city.
In this way, the city government should import ban on the factories, instead of directly cleaning up the water. Therefore, simply cleaning up the river water would not improve the quality of the water if the government does not get to the bottom of the question. In conclusion, although the idea of spending more money to maintain riverside recreational facilities seemed logical at first glance, it is, actually, based on false interpretations of assumptions with holes, and therefore might not conduce to the goals-increased use of the riverside recreational facilities.
| 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 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 littl 77
- The following letter is from a group of Linford College alumni to the chair of the artdepartment at the college.“In a recent survey of college graduates, 90 percent agreed that participating in aninternship increased their chances of finding a job after 63
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 435 350
No. of Characters: 2211 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.567 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.083 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.912 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.188 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.767 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.408 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.623 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2260.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19540229885 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01276624887 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.406896551724 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 709.2 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.7592824124 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.25 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.1875 23.324526521 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5625 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 1.0 5.15768463074 19% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.297952449947 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113854255391 0.0743258471296 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0819968254016 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.297952449947 0.128457276422 232% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0628817314937 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.24 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.