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 of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities
offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more
information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be
hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project.
For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such
high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as
indicators of actual behavior. Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who
list exercise and weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym
membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague. While water
sports may be among the residents’ favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What
remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a
softball field or soccer field? Are they willing to sacrifice the municipal golf course for better
riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of
improved facilities.
Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased
usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the
river? The answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons our residents use or do
not use the river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and
piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are
already engaged in? These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage
will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget.
Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river. We need to hear
the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a
campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will
the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside
facilities only to watch the new buildings fall into dilapidation while the state drags the river cleanup.
Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from. The
current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense,
the City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements
to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without
forethought on where it will come from.
Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational
facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a
possibility, more information is required to warrant any action
| 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 |
- 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 70
- The following was used as part of an internet advertising company s appeal to businesses Furniture Depot employed our internet advertising company to help Since then its sales increased by 10 over last year s totals Furniture Depot s success demonstrates 60
Comments
e-rater score 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: 31 15
No. of Words: 506 350
No. of Characters: 2564 1500
No. of Different Words: 265 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.743 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.067 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.57 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.323 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.738 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.355 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.231 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.231 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.04 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 42, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...emains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 23, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Indeed,
...ourse for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough infor...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, likewise, may, regarding, so, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2673.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 506.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28260869565 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7428307748 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65294325652 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 269.0 204.123752495 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53162055336 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 836.1 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 19.7664670659 157% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.8224946694 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.2258064516 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3225806452 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.83870967742 5.70786347227 32% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 34.0 5.15768463074 659% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216233333289 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.054324888993 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0656144810068 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0521285899175 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0657120153608 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 98.500998004 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six 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.