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 i

Essay topics:

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 author advised the government to devote money in this year's budget to the recreational facilities along Mason River. To support his/ her statements, a survey has been quoted and shows that the water quality is the main reason that the citizens don't use Mason River for recreational acitivities. Because the state has announced that the improvement of Mason River's water quality will be implemented. Thus, the use of Mason River will surely increase. Quite convincing though the argument may seem at first glance. However, being rife with assumptions and holes, we need further information to evaluate the statement.

First of all, the statement naively assumes that the survey would be fully reliable. However, without further information about the source and details of the survey, we are reluctant to believe it. It could be the case that the survey is from a enterprise which sells facilities for water sports. Possibly they just misled the participants to choose water sports as their favor. Then, the argument would be unreliable at all. Moreover, even we grant that the survey is reliable. However, the assumption that the participants would really do water sports on a regular basis, especially in Mason River, is suspectable. If they just like to watch them on TV, then I would not believe after improvment of the facilities they will really conduct water sports in person. Or what if they would like to go to a beach near Mason city? So, the water quality may not be the reason that citizens do not use Mason River.

In addition, the writer claims that the complaints about the water quality have been existed for long. However, without accurate information about the total amount of the complaints, we cannot assume that the water quality is quite serious so that it prevents citizens from using Mason River. Maybe just one or two residents living near the Mason River have complained, then the problem will be insignificant. Forthermore, the author claims that the state has already announced the plan of cleaning and assumes that the improvement will be accomplished within this year and the outcome will be significant. It could be the case that it is just a campaign promise, then, we are reluctant to believe the water qulity will be really improved efficiently. Thus, it is not reasonable to ask for more budget this year.

Finally, the advice fails to consider other method to improve the usage of Mason River and simply assumes that more budget to the riverside recreational facilities is the only way. However, increasing budget may cause negative impact since we do not know about the economic status of Mason government. If the increased budget has to be got from other sectors like medical and educational fields, the ROI of this investment should be reconsidered.

Overall, so many vague information and unproved assumptions make us be reluctant to believe the argument. Further information will be needed to evaluate the sensibility of the advice.

Votes
Average: 5.5 (2 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2024-03-12 Mishtee Gandhi 66 view
2023-08-21 Kathy_zkx 83 view
2023-08-09 DCAD123 60 view
2023-08-01 Fortune Quarshie 68 view
2023-07-23 chwj 80 view
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 54, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...vised the government to devote money in this years budget to the recreational facili...
^^^^
Line 1, column 249, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ty is the main reason that the citizens dont use Mason River for recreational acitiv...
^^^^
Line 1, column 300, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” 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.
...son River for recreational acitivities. Because the state has announced that the improv...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 244, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...uld be the case that the survey is from a enterprise which sells facilities for w...
^
Line 3, column 351, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to water'
Suggestion: to water
... just misled the participants to choose water sports as their favor. Then, the argume...
^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, really, so, then, thus, as to, in addition, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2495.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 493.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06085192698 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70136410364 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454361054767 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 784.8 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.9512436123 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.4074074074 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2592592593 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.7037037037 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.189391533145 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0614699698027 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0548482121832 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106205153438 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0733523247297 0.0628817314937 117% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 494 350
No. of Characters: 2427 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.714 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.913 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.616 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.296 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.922 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.741 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.298 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.477 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.158 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5