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.
The presented text concerns a writer who is a proponent advocating for an increase in government funding towards the riverside recreational facilities of Mason City. A river’s water quality as well as the safety and maintenance of its facilities play an important factor in a state or city’s property value. While the writer clearly presents their position on the matter, their argument as to why the government should increase their budget for recreational facilities along the Mason River is replete with logical holes and assumptions which ultimately undermine the argument’s cogency.
The writer opens their case with the claim of how Mason City residents who took a survey regarding their favorite recreational activities, ranked water sports among their top choices. While at a cursory glance, this may seem like strong evidence for increased funding of riverside recreational facilities, it falls short in the sense that there is the assumption that the residents who ranked water sports favorably are likely to participate in water sports themselves. Perhaps these residents merely enjoy watching water sports rather than actually partaking in them. The writer does not effectively establish the cause or a connection between ranking water sports highly on a survey and the probability of undertaking such an activity if given the opportunity.
Building further on the survey example, the writer’s argument makes the assumption that the conducted survey is valid. As readers, we do not know the scope and validity of the survey. For example, the survey could not be a holistic representation of the residents of Mason City but rather only the ones who live along the river, making the results tendentious. The survey could have been administered in the summer, again making the results skewed to favor water sports as a favorable recreational activity simply because people tend to enjoy cooling off in the water during the warmer months of the year. These unstated parameters of the survey only force the reader, and thus the government to question the validity of the survey. Only if the survey is representative of the entire population of Mason City, and administered in a fair unbiased fashion can it be an effective piece of evidence for the writer’s argument.
Additionally, the writer assumes that the reason for the river’s lack of use is due to the poor water quality. Furthermore, it is explicitly assumed that cleaning the water will result in an increase in the river’s use. While it may be true that decreased water quality may curb the occurrence of water-based recreational activities, it could also be true that the people of Mason City are genuinely not interested in using the water. Perhaps, and it is not illogical to assume, the reason for complaints is not that residents want to do water sports but rather that people do not wish to be subjected to having to live nearby dirty, smelly water. Thus, cleaning the water will not affect the river’s use to any significant capacity, at least not enough to call for increased government funding for riverside recreational facilities.
With consideration of these points, it is difficult to perceive the cogency of the writer’s argument. Should any of these counterpoints hold true, then the listed assumptions are proven unwarranted. As a result, the logic of the writer’s argument is unsound, the argument itself is tenuous and would indicate the government of Mason City should not allocate greater funds towards riverside recreational facilities as this would be an unnecessary expense.
| 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 |
- Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to to benefit the greatest number of people Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain for the p 83
- 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 66
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 83
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 589, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ately undermine the argument’s cogency. The writer opens their case with the cla...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... an activity if given the opportunity. Building further on the survey example, ...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of evidence for the writer’s argument. Additionally, the writer assumes that th...
^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...or riverside recreational facilities. With consideration of these points, it i...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, furthermore, if, may, regarding, so, then, thus, well, while, as to, at least, for example, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3028.0 2260.96107784 134% => OK
No of words: 576.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25694444444 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89897948557 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90964556714 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.449652777778 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 957.6 705.55239521 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => 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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.5433727056 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.19047619 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.4285714286 23.324526521 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.47619047619 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.334445930586 0.218282227539 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104574112356 0.0743258471296 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0644088819403 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196412494445 0.128457276422 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0687861132375 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.3799401198 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 98.500998004 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 589, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ately undermine the argument’s cogency. The writer opens their case with the cla...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... an activity if given the opportunity. Building further on the survey example, ...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of evidence for the writer’s argument. Additionally, the writer assumes that th...
^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...or riverside recreational facilities. With consideration of these points, it i...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, furthermore, if, may, regarding, so, then, thus, well, while, as to, at least, for example, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3028.0 2260.96107784 134% => OK
No of words: 576.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25694444444 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89897948557 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90964556714 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.449652777778 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 957.6 705.55239521 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => 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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.5433727056 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.19047619 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.4285714286 23.324526521 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.47619047619 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.334445930586 0.218282227539 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104574112356 0.0743258471296 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0644088819403 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.196412494445 0.128457276422 153% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0687861132375 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 14.3799401198 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 98.500998004 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.