In this argument, the author recommends the Mason city government to devote more money to maintaining the riverside recreational facilities. To bolster his or her suggestion, the author cites a survey that water sports are the Mason City residents favourite recreational activities, and the city government devotes little budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. While devoting more money to maintaining riverside recreational facilities may indeed gratify the residents, the reasoning of this argument is unconvincing due to several unsubstantiated assumptions which, if proven unwarranted, will seriously challenge the author's recommendation.
First of all, the author's recommendation relies heavily on the assumption that residents only play water sport at the riverside of the Mason River. Based on such an assumption, the author, therefore, proposes that the Mason River's riverside recreational facilities need more money to maintain. However, this assumption is potentially problematic because we are not informed of whether or not the residents of Mason City prefer to play water sports in other places. If turns out that people have many choices to choose where to play water sports but not only in the Mason River, then the author's argument is unconvincing.
In addition, by stating that the state announced plans to clean up the quality and the smell of the river's water, the author reason that the using of the river for water sports will increase. However, we need to re-examine the assumption that the reason for residents seldom play water sports in Mason River is the poor quality and the odour of the river's water. If there are other reasons, for example, people may prefer to swim in the pool, then the author's argument would be weakened.
Even if the assumptions mentioned above are valid, the writer's recommendation may still not be advisable due to the doubtful assumption regarding the quality and the smell of the river's water must be cleaned up by the state. More specifically, there is no guarantee about whether or not the state's plan is effective, or we even do not know whether the plan will be exactly performance or not. If in this case, the author's assumption will not hold, and his or her recommendation will be undermined.
To summarize, whether or not the city government should devote more money to riverside recreational facilities is still questionable and worth further investigation. The answer could turn out to be positive, but only after the author can reasonably demonstrate the validity of his/her assumptions by offering more compelling evidence.
- Do you agree or disagree with the statement:It is better to make friends who are intelligent than with a good sense of humor. 73
- Do you agree or disagree The rapid growth of cities has a mostly positive impact on the development of the society 91
- technology designed to make our life simpler actually makes our life more complicated 95
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement In order for a business to succeed it must put more money in advertising 87
- Do you agree or disagree: The rapid growth of cities has a mostly positive impact on the development of the society. 71
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 414 350
No. of Characters: 2160 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.511 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.217 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.969 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.031 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.414 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.655 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.221 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 639, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...warranted, will seriously challenge the authors recommendation. First of all, th...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hallenge the authors recommendation. First of all, the authors recommendation...
^^^^
Line 3, column 23, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ecommendation. First of all, the authors recommendation relies heavily on the as...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 382, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...blematic because we are not informed of whether or not the residents of Mason City prefer to ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 413, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ormed of whether or not the residents of Mason City prefer to play water sports i...
^^
Line 3, column 593, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t not only in the Mason River, then the authors argument is unconvincing. In add...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he authors argument is unconvincing. In addition, by stating that the state a...
^^^^
Line 5, column 457, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ay prefer to swim in the pool, then the authors argument would be weakened. Even...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... authors argument would be weakened. Even if the assumptions mentioned above ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 60, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...umptions mentioned above are valid, the writers recommendation may still not be advisab...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 277, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...ecifically, there is no guarantee about whether or not the states plan is effective, or we eve...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 419, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...erformance or not. If in this case, the authors assumption will not hold, and his or he...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r recommendation will be undermined. To summarize, whether or not the city go...
^^^^
Line 9, column 19, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...ill be undermined. To summarize, whether or not the city government should devote more ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, regarding, so, still, then, therefore, while, for example, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2206.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 413.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34140435835 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04731337642 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.438256658596 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 693.0 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 43.8600805593 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.066666667 119.503703932 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5333333333 23.324526521 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.6 5.70786347227 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 14.0 5.25449101796 266% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230974429673 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0997406822593 0.0743258471296 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0890463724424 0.0701772020484 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138393405628 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0847860740864 0.0628817314937 135% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.5 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 12.3882235529 129% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => 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.