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 problem with the arguement is the assumption that if the Mason River were cleaned up, that people would use it for water sports and recreation. This is not necessarily true, as people may rank water sports among their favorite recreational activities, but that does not mean that those same people have the financial ability, time or equipment to pursue those interests.
However, even if the writer of the arguement is correct in assuming that the Mason River will be used more by the city's residents, the arguement does not say why the recreational facilities need more money. If recreational facilities already exist along the Mason River, why should the city allot more money to fund them? If the recreational facilities already in existence will be used more in the coming years, then they will be making more money for themselves, eliminating the need for the city government to devote more money to them.
According to the arguement, the reason people are not using the Mason River for water sports is because of the smell and the quality of water, not because the recreational facilities are unacceptable.
If the city government alloted more money to the recreational facilities, then the budget is being cut from some other important city project. Also, if the assumptions proved unwarranted, and more people did not use the river for recreation, then much money has been wasted, not only the money for the recreational facilities, but also the money that was used to clean up the river to attract more people in the first place.
| 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 |
- A recent study indicates that children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas in the United States, despite the fact that people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal re 50
- Claim: Even though young people often receive the advice to “follow your dreams,” more emphasis should be placed on picking worthy goals.Reason: Many people’s dreams are inherently selfish.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which 50
- Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society. 50
- Pirouettes Ballet School is the clear choice for any child. Of all the dance schools in Elmtown, Pirouettes has the most intensive program, and our teachers have danced in the most prestigious ballet companies all over the world. Many of our students have 50
- A pet food company recalled 4 million pounds of pet food in response to complaints that pets that had consumed the food experienced vomiting, lethargy, and other signs of illness. After the recall, the pet food company tested samples from the recalled foo 50
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.249122807018 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.157894736842 0.15541462614 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0877192982456 0.0836205057962 105% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0666666666667 0.0520304965353 128% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0210526315789 0.0272364105082 77% => OK
Prepositions: 0.112280701754 0.125424944231 90% => OK
Participles: 0.0491228070175 0.0416121511921 118% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.68873114088 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0280701754386 0.026700313972 105% => OK
Particles: 0.00701754385965 0.001811407834 387% => OK
Determiners: 0.129824561404 0.113004496875 115% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0210526315789 0.0255425247493 82% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0105263157895 0.0127820249294 82% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1549.0 2731.13054187 57% => OK
No of words: 260.0 446.07635468 58% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.95769230769 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.57801047555 88% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.288461538462 0.378187486979 76% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.2 0.287650121315 70% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.157692307692 0.208842608468 76% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.138461538462 0.135150697306 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68873114088 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 207.018472906 61% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.484615384615 0.469332199767 103% => OK
Word variations: 45.408854815 52.1807786196 87% => OK
How many sentences: 8.0 20.039408867 40% => More sentences wanted.
Sentence length: 32.5 23.2022227129 140% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.7073404449 57.7814097925 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 193.625 141.986410481 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.5 23.2022227129 140% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.125 0.724660767414 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 52.5 51.9672348444 101% => OK
Elegance: 1.67142857143 1.8405768891 91% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.417993015265 0.441005458295 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.2243138939 0.135418324435 166% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0686427205733 0.0829849096947 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.809334679392 0.58762219726 138% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.102109733574 0.147661913831 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.255621213385 0.193483328276 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0519163515553 0.0970749176394 53% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.415871289814 0.42659136922 97% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0724396393058 0.0774707102158 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.307752962864 0.312017818177 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0150222577859 0.0698173142475 22% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 8.0 14.657635468 55% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More content wanted. For issue essays, around 450 words, for argument essays, around 400 words.
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.